Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:57:38 -0700
From:      Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
To:        Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org>
Cc:        Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, current@freebsd.org, cokane@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: separate 3dfx_linux module
Message-ID:  <44033D92.2020009@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060227175740.GA6099@pint.candc.home>
References:  <20060225140509.GC79616@comp.chem.msu.su> <44008314.8030205@samsco.org> <20060225201102.GA6936@pint.candc.home> <20060227121305.GO6435@comp.chem.msu.su> <20060227175740.GA6099@pint.candc.home>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Coleman Kane wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:13:05PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 03:11:02PM -0500, Coleman Kane wrote:
>>
>>>Sounds good to me. In the event that you want to build this statically
>>>into the kernel, doesn't the option still need to be available,
>>>or are we talking about a device tdfxlinux ?
>>
>>It was exactly my point, too: the TDFX_LINUX option has to be there
>>so that people still can compile device tdfx with Linux support into
>>the main kernel file.
> 
> 
> Not to mention so that they can omit said functionality if it is not
> desired. I believe that the kmod by default compiles this in though.
> 
> 
>>-- 
>>Yar

Ok, I envisioned this as:

device	tdfx
device	tdfxlinux	# Optional Linux compatibility

I don't have a strong opinion on it, and I'll defer to whatever Coleman
and Yar think is most appropriate.

SCott




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44033D92.2020009>