[U-Boot] [PATCH 03/11] DM: add block controller core

[Pavel Herrmann]

On Friday 21 of September 2012 14:51:33 Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Pavel Herrmann,
> 
> > On Thursday 20 of September 2012 22:05:36 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > Dear Pavel Herrmann,
> > > 
> > > > This core provides unified access to different block controllers
> > > > (SATA,
> > > > SCSI).
> > > 
> > > Description of the patch missing or is sub-par. You should work on this
> > > skill.
> > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Herrmann <morpheus.ibis at gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  Makefile                   |   1 +
> > > >  drivers/blockctrl/Makefile |  42 ++++++
> > > >  drivers/blockctrl/core.c   | 349
> > > > 
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/dm/blockctrl.h
> > > > 
> > > >  75 ++++++++++
> > > >  4 files changed, 467 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/blockctrl/Makefile
> > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/blockctrl/core.c
> > > >  create mode 100644 include/dm/blockctrl.h
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > > index e43fd9d..4420484 100644
> > > > --- a/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > > @@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ LIBS-y += test/libtest.o
> > > > 
> > > >  LIBS-$(CONFIG_DM) += common/dm/libdm.o
> > > >  LIBS-$(CONFIG_DM) += drivers/demo/libdemo.o
> > > >  LIBS-${CONFIG_DM_BLOCK} += drivers/blockdev/libblockdev.o
> > > > 
> > > > +LIBS-${CONFIG_DM_BLOCK} += drivers/blockctrl/libblockctrl.o
> > > 
> > > ${} ? What is this ?
> 
> Why not just reuse drivers/block and in drivers/block compile in the
> libblock.o so you don't polute the top-level makefile ? Easy as that.
> 
> > > [..]
> > > 
> > > This handles SCSI? Sata ? what ?
> > > 
> > > Should this not be called scsi_core ? sata_core ? What did the previous
> > > core do? sata?  scsi? block? I'm lost.
> > 
> > the previous core handled disks (and cards and stuff) and partitions
> > (think
> > /dev/sdxy), and was largely a replacement of /disk
> > this core handles any interface those disks are connected to (SATA, PATA,
> > SCSI), and should replace /drivers/block
> 
> Why is this not in the commit message then ? I have a proposal, before you
> submit a patchset, prepare it, work on something else for a bit, then read
> again the commit message only and see if you still understand what it
> means.

I actually did. the "something else" was splitting it into smaller patches, so 
the original text information got distributed into the other patches. if i put 
it all here you would surely complain about it not being there, or it being 
duplicated

> Am I correct that this will look as such:
> user -> [ 01/11 ] -> [ 03/11 or something else ] -> [ if 03/11, then disc ]

no idea what this means, sorry

Pavel Herrmann