Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:56:11 -0500 From: Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su>, current@freebsd.org, cokane@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: separate 3dfx_linux module Message-ID: <20060228005611.GA7600@pint.candc.home> In-Reply-To: <44034201.4040304@samsco.org> 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> <44033D92.2020009@samsco.org> <20060227181610.GB6099@pint.candc.home> <44034201.4040304@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:16:33AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > Coleman Kane wrote: > > > > > >My impression was more that the current config format would stay the > >same, but there'd be separate modules (rather than incorporating it all > >into tdfx.ko): > >tdfx.ko > >tdfx_linux.ko > > > >Much like how wlan.ko and wlan_*.ko operate? > > > > Well, we are talking about different things here, I think. I absolutely > agree with having separate .ko files, regardless of what kernel options > or devices are specified. What I'm wondering about is when building the > tdfx driver into the kernel, does the tdfx-linux functionality come in > via an 'option' or a 'device'. If it's an 'option', does that mean that > you can load the tdfx_linux.ko module into a kernel that has the tdfx > device included? I see where you're going with this. As I recall, this was a hinderance back when I first wrote the driver (resulting in the default of TDFX_LINUX being defined in the kmod). I don't know these days, if the functionality can be divided between two kmods then I would hope one could be loaded into the kernel statically and one via kmod. > > Scott >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060228005611.GA7600>