On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:16:33AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > Coleman Kane wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:57:38AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > > > >>Coleman Kane wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:13:05PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>It was exactly my point, too: the TDFX_LINUX option has to be there > >>>>so that people still can compile device tdfx with Linux support into > >>>>the main kernel file. > >>> > >>> > >>>Not to mention so that they can omit said functionality if it is not > >>>desired. I believe that the kmod by default compiles this in though. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>-- > >>>>Yar > >> > >>Ok, I envisioned this as: > >> > >>device tdfx > >>device tdfxlinux # Optional Linux compatibility > >> > >>I don't have a strong opinion on it, and I'll defer to whatever Coleman > >>and Yar think is most appropriate. > > > > > >My impression was more that the current config format would stay the > >same, but there'd be separate modules (rather than incorporating it all > >into tdfx.ko): > >tdfx.ko > >tdfx_linux.ko > > > >Much like how wlan.ko and wlan_*.ko operate? > > > > Well, we are talking about different things here, I think. I absolutely > agree with having separate .ko files, regardless of what kernel options > or devices are specified. What I'm wondering about is when building the > tdfx driver into the kernel, does the tdfx-linux functionality come in > via an 'option' or a 'device'. If it's an 'option', does that mean that > you can load the tdfx_linux.ko module into a kernel that has the tdfx > device included? It should be possible, as tdfx_linux.ko just installs an ioctl handler in the linuxolator. tdfx_linux.ko could be loaded in a kernel without tdfx at all, too, because it doesn't have explicit dependency on the tdfx code, it just converts an ioctl data structure using basic C types; but it would be little sense in such possibility, so I added MODULE_DEPEND(tfdx) to tdfx_linux.ko so that people can just kldload tdfx_linux and get all the stuff in the kernel at once. I really don't care about how the functionality will be reflected in the kernel conf file because I've never used the tdfx thingie. I just tried to keep the old way of things so that users don't complain that their old kernel conf files stopped working in 6.1-RELEASE: POLA and all that. OTOH, in perspective, it's better for tdfx_linux to be a `device' so that the separate module can be built based only on the /sys/conf data, without the limited /sys/modules framework. -- YarReceived on Wed Mar 01 2006 - 14:58:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:52 UTC