On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 03:27:48PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: > > > This isn't unreasonable but there are drivers with userspace helpers that > > > use iopl/ioperm type functionality where you should be doing a SELECT of > > > X86_IOPORT. The one that comes to mind is the uvesa driver. From a quick > > > scan it may these days be the only mainstream one that needs the select > > > adding. > > > > Should kernel drivers really express dependencies that only their > > (current instances of) corresponding userspace components need? > > Something seems wrong about that. > > uvesafb will always need X86_IOPORT. It's kind of implicit in the design. > I'm not suggesting that fbdev should select X86_IOPORT but in the uvesafb > case at least it's completely useless to have one and not the other.
OK, fair enough. Do you want the patch series respun to add that select in patch 10/10, or would you consider it sufficient to add that in a followup patch, since the kernel will build and boot either way (so it won't break bisection)? Related to that: Is it intentional that FB_UVESA doesn't depend on X86, even though FB_VESA does? Does v86d run on non-x86 hardware via emulation? If so, should FB_UVESA have "select X86_IOPORT if X86"? - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
