Devicetree: Initialization order of mmc block devices?

[Jassi Brar]

On 20 July 2012 17:00, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme at de.bosch.com> wrote:
> On 19.07.2012 22:45, Jassi Brar wrote:

>>> This problem can occur on many devices with embedded MMC and removable
>>> SD,
>>> e.g. smart phones. So I think we should find an solution to define MMC
>>> scan
>>> order or device number/name in a device tree.
>>>
>> I assume your issue is that due to async nature of mmc scanning, the
>> eMMC is detected later than external card, despite being the probe for
>> eMMC's slot initiated first ?
>> If so, we can do by simply associating 'N' of 'mmcblkN' with the slot
>> index i.e, mmc_host.index (instead of mmc_blk_data.name_idx). Which is
>> always in the order of probe calling. And we don't need to modify, or
>> expect more of, DT for that.
>
>
> Do you mean something like
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> @@ -1536,7 +1536,7 @@ static struct mmc_blk_data *mmc_blk_alloc_req(struct
> mmc_card *card,
>          */
>
>         snprintf(md->disk->disk_name, sizeof(md->disk->disk_name),
> -                "mmcblk%d%s", md->name_idx, subname ? subname : "");
> +                "mmcblk%d%s", card->host->index, subname ? subname : "");
>
>         blk_queue_logical_block_size(md->queue.queue, 512);
>         set_capacity(md->disk, size);
>
> ?
>
Exactly!
It seems too trivial and default for the author to have missed it, so
I suspect I am overlooking something yet again. I would dig email
archives to know more about that naming convention before dare submit
a patch :)