On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> I have written documentation on Rules.make and the interface between
> Rules.make and Makefiles. It's here:
>
> ftp://ftp.shout.net/pub/users/mec/kbuild/x-Dkm-9.diff
>
> I would really like to see this documentation in the kernel.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> IMHO you should add some _more_ code to pas2_card.c so the sb stuff
> is completly initialized there and sb.o (sb_card.c) is no more needed
> for pas2. This means basically calling probe_sb() and attach_sb_card()
> with the right parameters.
Yeah.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 01:54:38PM -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> I suppose the more basic question is: Should the Soundblaster-specific
> code in pas2_card.c be ripped out and leave only PAS-specific code in
> the PAS driver?
IMHO you should add some _more_ code to pas2_card.c so the sb stuff
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > Yepp. These warnings are there becuse of the way the list-style Makefiles
> > work. You will see lots of them in drivers/net and drivers/scsi, too.
>
> Here's a patch. Let me know if it works for you; if it does,
> I will submit it
> Yepp. These warnings are there becuse of the way the list-style Makefiles
> work. You will see lots of them in drivers/net and drivers/scsi, too.
Here's a patch. Let me know if it works for you; if it does,
I will submit it for 2.4.0.
Here is some history: drivers/sound was the first of the
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:48:55AM -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> I know I misunderstand things occasionally, but it looks ok to
> me. Isn't that just an artifact of the diff/patch thing? I simply
> added sb.o to the line when I edited it.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > The enclosed patch corrects the Makefile and makes appropriate changes
> > to various doc files. Please consider accepting this for the next
> > kernel. This patch is against 2.4.0-test8.
>
> Aehmm.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> The PAS16 sound support includes code for the Soundblaster capability on
> the card.
Yes.
> I found an apparent Makefile error which does not enable the
> Soundblaster support as anticipated. Adding SB support induces an error
> for uart401 being
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
The PAS16 sound support includes code for the Soundblaster capability on
the card.
Yes.
I found an apparent Makefile error which does not enable the
Soundblaster support as anticipated. Adding SB support induces an error
for uart401 being included
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
The enclosed patch corrects the Makefile and makes appropriate changes
to various doc files. Please consider accepting this for the next
kernel. This patch is against 2.4.0-test8.
Aehmm. Your
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:48:55AM -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I know I misunderstand things occasionally, but it looks ok to
me. Isn't that just an artifact of the diff/patch thing? I simply
added sb.o to the line when I edited it. That's
Yepp. These warnings are there becuse of the way the list-style Makefiles
work. You will see lots of them in drivers/net and drivers/scsi, too.
Here's a patch. Let me know if it works for you; if it does,
I will submit it for 2.4.0.
Here is some history: drivers/sound was the first of the
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 01:54:38PM -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
I suppose the more basic question is: Should the Soundblaster-specific
code in pas2_card.c be ripped out and leave only PAS-specific code in
the PAS driver?
IMHO you should add some _more_ code to pas2_card.c so the sb stuff
is
The PAS16 sound support includes code for the Soundblaster capability on
the card. I found an apparent Makefile error which does not enable the
Soundblaster support as anticipated. Adding SB support induces an error
for uart401 being included twice at various points of the build process.
The
14 matches
Mail list logo
