lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] DRM depends on ???
Kyle Moffett wrote:

> On May 29, 2005, at 15:58:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>>> What Kyle said is the correct answer... we either keep this lovely
>>> construct (I'll add a comment for 2.6.13) or we go back to the old
>>> intermodule or module_get stuff... DRM built-in with modular AGP is
>>> always
>>> wrong... or at least I'll get a hundred e-mails less every month if I
>>> say it is ..
>>
>>
>> And what if we don't have AGP at all? Or no PCI?
>
>
> Then DRM detects that at configure time and excludes the code that
> requires
> AGP. Basically, the following are valid configurations:
>
> DRM=y AGP=y # DRM will use AGP
> DRM=y AGP=n # DRM will not use AGP
>
> DRM=m AGP=y # DRM will use AGP
> DRM=m AGP=m # DRM will use AGP (DRM module depends on AGP module)
> DRM=m AGP=n # DRM will not use AGP
>
> DRM=n AGP=* # DRM isn't compiled and therefore doesn't care about AGP
>
> The only invalid configuration is DRM=y AGP=m, which seems silly,
> although
> theoretically in that case DRM should exclude AGP support.

Why is that case invalid? I may have DRM=y so I get DRM on my
PCI graphichs card. Then I might load an agp module in order
to use agp on *some other* agp card.

I have no problem with DRM=y,AGP=m being invalid for the common
single-card setup, but there are multi-card setups too. Not that
I need this special case personally - I have two cards but don't use
modules.

Helge Hafting

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-30 13:19    [W:0.051 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site