From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 15 19:29:01 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676E71065683 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:29:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98128FC1E for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:29:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8FJRe5j082601; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:28:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:22:08 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <48CE59C2.9060307@icyb.net.ua> <48CE91AB.3000200@icyb.net.ua> <9D0F7169-9461-4F32-9420-702BED840A20@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <9D0F7169-9461-4F32-9420-702BED840A20@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200809151522.08679.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [IPv6:::1]); Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:28:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/8249/Mon Sep 15 12:31:36 2008 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: Marcel Moolenaar , Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: sio => uart: one port is gone X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:29:01 -0000 On Monday 15 September 2008 12:55:33 pm Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > on 15/09/2008 19:41 Marcel Moolenaar said the following: > >> So, if you compile acpi(4) as a module, you must compile all > >> it's depending drivers as modules as well. Or you compile acpi > >> into the kernel... > > > > I understand the logic, but OTOH uart can work without acpi too, so > > it's not a strict dependency. > > Well, yes. That's what's causing your "problem". You compile a > kernel without acpi but with uart. As such, uart will be built > without acpi support. uart does indeed work without acpi. > > The problem is that people then load the acpi module at runtime > and expect uart to work with acpi. That's not going to fly. If > one builds uart as a module, all possible support is included > and it works as expected. > > > Also, this (acpi dependency) doesn't seem to be documented. > > It's standard behaviour. The problem is that right now we ship with acpi.ko as a module by default and have the loader auto-load acpi.ko IFF the machine supports ACPI. Considering how cheap a bus attachment is, I find this argument rather rediculous. If you are building uart into the kernel on i386, just always include the acpi attachment. Other drivers give a more sane user experience. GENERIC should DTRT out-of-the-box, for example. -- John Baldwin