Hi,
On Monday 22 October 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> ~
> Another common idiom that we see (and sometimes have problems
> with) is this:
>
> When B (module or subsystem) uses interfaces from A (module or
> subsystem), A can be linked
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:46:43 +0200
> > In that kernel CONFIG_SCSI_QLA_FC is set to y but still it is not
> > possible to boot from any of those cards as the driver requires a
> > firmware file.
> Then an initrd-less boot is impossible for this
> device - even the modular approach needs
> an initrd
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 05:27:51PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Yes, there is a call to usermodehelper_init() before the initcalls in
do_basic_setup(), this does mean that firmware can be loaded by means of
the old and obsolete /sbin/hotplug mechanism, but who
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 05:27:51PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Yes, there is a call to usermodehelper_init() before the initcalls in
> do_basic_setup(), this does mean that firmware can be loaded by means of
> the old and obsolete /sbin/hotplug mechanism, but who has /sbin/hotplug now?
Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
I think there is a need for Kconfig to specify that a functionality could
be built as a module or not built at all.
Some drivers require that firmware is loaded when the driver is
initialized. The kernel has functionalities for this by using a userspace
program. However,
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:32:19PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
That's wrong. You can load firmware from the initramfs even if the
driver is built in. There is no valid reason why a driver shouldn't
be allowed to be built in.
Could you please explain
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 04:32:19PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >That's wrong. You can load firmware from the initramfs even if the
> >driver is built in. There is no valid reason why a driver shouldn't
> >be allowed to be built in.
>
> Could you please explain how this is supposed to
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
I think there is a need for Kconfig to specify that a functionality could
be built as a module or not built at all.
Some drivers require that firmware is loaded when the driver is
initialized. The kernel
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> I think there is a need for Kconfig to specify that a functionality could
> be built as a module or not built at all.
>
> Some drivers require that firmware is loaded when the driver is
> initialized. The kernel has functionalitie
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:14:16 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:47:48 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:03:13 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:45:17AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > Is there any other way to specify that a
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:47:48 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:03:13 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:45:17AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > Is there any other way to specify that a functionality can only be built
> > > > as a module, not built into
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:03:13 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:45:17AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > Is there any other way to specify that a functionality can only be built
> > > as a module, not built into the kernel?
> >
> > config FOO
> > depends on BAR && m
> >
>
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:45:17AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Is there any other way to specify that a functionality can only be built
> > as a module, not built into the kernel?
>
> config FOO
> depends on BAR && m
>
> restricts FOO to module-only.
>
> > In my firsta attempts to post
> config FOO
> depends on BAR && m
>
> restricts FOO to module-only.
Thanks alot! That really did the trick! With the following file:
-8<---
config SCSI_QLA_FC
tristate "QLogic QLA2XXX Fibre Channel Support"
depends on PCI && SCSI && m
se
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:24:02 +0200 Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:47:38 -0400
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:17:00 +0200, Sam Ravnborg said:
> > > I assume
> > > depends on MODULES
> > >
> > > should do the trick.
> >
> > Umm... I think that will wor
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:47:38 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:17:00 +0200, Sam Ravnborg said:
> > I assume
> > depends on MODULES
> >
> > should do the trick.
>
> Umm... I think that will work backwards, and give you CONFIG_FOO=y
> if.f the kernel *supports* modules. W
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:17:00 +0200, Sam Ravnborg said:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> > I think there is a need for Kconfig to specify that a functionality could
> > be built as a module or not built at all.
>
> I assume
> depends on MODULES
>
> should
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:17:00 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> > I think there is a need for Kconfig to specify that a functionality could
> > be built as a module or not built at all.
>
> I assume
> depends on MODULES
>
> shoul
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> I think there is a need for Kconfig to specify that a functionality could
> be built as a module or not built at all.
I assume
depends on MODULES
should do the trick.
Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
19 matches
Mail list logo
