Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:22:08 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: sio => uart: one port is gone Message-ID: <200809151522.08679.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <9D0F7169-9461-4F32-9420-702BED840A20@mac.com> References: <48CE59C2.9060307@icyb.net.ua> <48CE91AB.3000200@icyb.net.ua> <9D0F7169-9461-4F32-9420-702BED840A20@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200809151522.08679.jhb>