On Tuesday 13 December 2005 12:00 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:01:42AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > Because sio(4) only includes sio_puc.c in the kernel if you have 'puc' in > > your kernel config, and the puc kernel module only includes the puc > > files, it doesn't include sio_puc.c and ppc_puc.c. uart has the same > > issue as well. Looking at the three attachments, there's no reason for > > them to be dependent on puc, they don't actually call any symbols in the > > puc(4) kernel module itself, so they can be compiled into kernels w/o puc > > without causing any harm. Then loading puc as a module would work. > > Here's a patch: > > Isn't there another way? It just seems wrong to include *_puc bits in > the kernel if you don't have 'puc' in your kernel. There are some > working on trimming down the kernel for embedded purposes and this patch > seems counter to that effort. Well, you could have sio_puc, ppc_puc, and uart_puc modules, and you could do: kldload sio_puc.ko kldload ppc_puc.ko kldload uart_puc.ko kldload puc.ko However, that type of approach will give us a huge profileration of modules and make them even less useful and a PITA to use than they are now. Also, in this case we are talking about a total of about 6 short functions (2 per device), and even then you only get them if you put sio, ppc, uart, etc. in your kernel. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Tue Dec 13 2005 - 18:36:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:49 UTC