Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:45:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> For what it's worth, I haven't seen any AGP confusion reports myself due
> to the move to "helper core modules".
they were few and far between, but I did field a few mails from folks
not loading the sub-driver,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 07:45:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > This was exactly the reason I hesitated when you first suggested that I
> > did exactly that for agpgart, but I figured you knew best...
> It's worked pretty well for AGP, and it sure as hell cleaned stuff up.
no argument ther
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> This was exactly the reason I hesitated when you first suggested that I
> did exactly that for agpgart, but I figured you knew best...
It's worked pretty well for AGP, and it sure as hell cleaned stuff up.
It was a suggested thing for DRI too a _loong_
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 09:25:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > If a lot of this stuff really is that device independent, why don't we
> > move it to a separate kernel module? That would save some memory when
> > multiple DRM drivers are loaded at once.
>
> Kernel modules that depend
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Dawes wrote:
>
> So, my question is whether the new kernel build mechanism is intended
> to allow this type of thing, or did it work before more by accident than
> design?
Hmm.. Sounds accidental, but it might be a good idea to contact
Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:52:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Dawes wrote:
>>
>> Does this go any way towards explaining why it seems to be getting harder
>> and harder to build modules outside of the kernel source tree while
>> still leveraging the kernel build mech
José Fonseca wrote:
The new attached patch also covers the drm_agpsupport.h janitorial.
As nobody stepped against it, I'll start commiting soon.
Except for this first time, I don't plan to commit more than one header
"janitorial" per day. This means that anybody can track regressions with
the nig
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-15] José Fonseca wrote:
> >Quite frankly, looking at the current DRI tree, there's not a lot of
> >code like this there that I can see. Almost every single "library"
> >function has intimate details about the hardware through macro
> >expansion.
>
The new attached patch also covers the drm_agpsupport.h janitorial.
As nobody stepped against it, I'll start commiting soon.
Except for this first time, I don't plan to commit more than one header
"janitorial" per day. This means that anybody can track regressions with
the nightly snapshots.
For
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:26:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> If they have the same name, they must be the same function. It's that
> simple. And if it's the same function and used by multiple different
> drivers, then it MUST NOT have CONFIG_xxx dependencies.
Ok. Thanks for clearing this
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-15] José Fonseca wrote:
>
> IIUC, at least for modules, the symbols which we want to make available
> to other modules usually have to be specificaly declared (with
> EXPORT_SYMBOL). Therefore each module it's "own namespace", i.e., two
> different modules with some
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 09:31:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-15] José Fonseca wrote:
> >
> > According with archives
> > (http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/faq/architecture.html#DRM-SUB-DRIVERS),
> > Linus wanted the DRM drivers to be independent.
>
> I wanted t
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, David Dawes wrote:
>
> Does this go any way towards explaining why it seems to be getting harder
> and harder to build modules outside of the kernel source tree while
> still leveraging the kernel build mechanism?
No. That is explained by the inevitable lack of testing, I thi
Linus Torvalds wrote:
To me modules are either
- "distribution kernels" (either things like RedHat/SuSE, or just local
MIS distrubutions)
- development (load a module, test, unload, fix, load again)
and make zero sense otherwise when you have full sources.
We also have our binary driver upda
José Fonseca wrote:
According with archives
(http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/faq/architecture.html#DRM-SUB-DRIVERS),
Linus wanted the DRM drivers to be independent. Don't know if he still
feels the same, considering the ALSA/OSS modules, or the recent
reorganization of AGPGART. Don't know as well
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-15] José Fonseca wrote:
>
> According with archives
> (http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/faq/architecture.html#DRM-SUB-DRIVERS),
> Linus wanted the DRM drivers to be independent.
I wanted that because the old code was total crap, and the makefiles could
never get the
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Ian Romanick wrote:
>
> I think you would be fine with multiple modules, but I think it would
> break if you had multiple drivers built into the kernel. I'm not sure
> about that, though.
Yes.
The reason for DRM(xxx) is that I personally _require_ that built-in
modules
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 01:26:04AM +0100, José Fonseca wrote:
>I would also like to discuss the possibility of:
> - dropping the DRM(my_func)() for drm_my_func(). If I'm not mistaken,
> these symbols aren't exported to the rest of the kernel so there
> isn't any conflict when several DRM's ar
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:07:16PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> José Fonseca wrote:
>
> >I would also like to discuss the possibility of:
> > - dropping the DRM(my_func)() for drm_my_func(). If I'm not mistaken,
> > these symbols aren't exported to the rest of the kernel so there
> > isn't an
José Fonseca wrote:
I would also like to discuss the possibility of:
- dropping the DRM(my_func)() for drm_my_func(). If I'm not mistaken,
these symbols aren't exported to the rest of the kernel so there
isn't any conflict when several DRM's are loaded simulatenously on
the kernel (or i
(At least in my opinion) the DRM template code is somewhat ugly and difficult to
modify since the code is all spread out and a small change usually leads
to modifications is several places. This is surely result of some
groing pain since actually there is no real reason to be like that since
it's
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 09:31:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>My only real underlying requirement is that compiled-in stuff works. I
>personally refuse to use modules, since I see no point to them when I
>compile the kernel for my machine _anyway_.
Does this go any way towards explaining wh
22 matches
Mail list logo
