On Sep 15, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:07:45PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> On Monday 15 September 2008 04:13:10 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 15, 2008, at 12:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday 15 September 2008 12:55:33 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> on 15/09/2008 19:41 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: >>>>>>> So, if you compile acpi(4) as a module, you must compile all >>>>>>> it's depending drivers as modules as well. Or you compile acpi >>>>>>> into the kernel... >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand the logic, but OTOH uart can work without acpi >>>>>> too, so >>>>>> it's not a strict dependency. >>>>> >>>>> Well, yes. That's what's causing your "problem". You compile a >>>>> kernel without acpi but with uart. As such, uart will be built >>>>> without acpi support. uart does indeed work without acpi. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that people then load the acpi module at runtime >>>>> and expect uart to work with acpi. That's not going to fly. If >>>>> one builds uart as a module, all possible support is included >>>>> and it works as expected. >>>>> >>>>>> Also, this (acpi dependency) doesn't seem to be documented. >>>>> >>>>> It's standard behaviour. >>>> >>>> The problem is that right now we ship with acpi.ko as a module by >>>> default and >>>> have the loader auto-load acpi.ko IFF the machine supports ACPI. >>> >>> Well, don't do that then. Just have the device probe check if acpi >>> is >>> supported and attach if yes. >> >> It does that, the loader stuff is from someone trying to be fancy >> and save the >> memory of not having acpi.ko around if the system doesn't support >> it. This >> may in fact be dubious. :) > > While acpi.ko is a beast (about .5MB) we're really only talking > about savings > in the case when people are using GENERIC so it seems highly dubious. I tend to agree. If we didn't had the side-effects, then it's neat little thing. It would be interesting to experiment with how we can control code/data placement, so that we can bundle code or data in a way that allows us to re-use memory when the code or data is not needed (anymore). Such as kernel initialization code, driver code, firmware data, etc... -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt_at_mac.comReceived on Mon Sep 15 2008 - 21:05:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:35 UTC