From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 1 16:55:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE86A16A442 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 16:55:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8DF43D46 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 16:55:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from [192.168.4.250] (dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.250]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k41GteA1007871; Mon, 1 May 2006 09:55:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) In-Reply-To: <200605011421.49909.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <6eb82e0604300552he3d8010yf2ca81e52b54c4a7@mail.gmail.com> <6eb82e0604302110j7bca56eftce23feb306111823@mail.gmail.com> <200605011421.49909.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <5DD170B6-01CA-4B17-A92E-62656070A012@xcllnt.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marcel Moolenaar Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 09:55:40 -0700 To: "Daniel O'Connor" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Rong-En Fan Subject: Re: lpt0 disappear (ppc related) 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, 01 May 2006 16:55:43 -0000 On Apr 30, 2006, at 9:51 PM, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Monday 01 May 2006 13:50, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >>> As for building acpi into kernel, i386/conf/NOTES says: >>> >>> # Note that building ACPI into the kernel is deprecated; the >>> module is >>> # normally loaded automatically by the loader. >>> >>> I thought that was deprecated? >> >> No, it isn't really. The use of modules is not a requirement. > > However you wouldn't expect that using it as a module would result > in reduced > functionality. True. This is exactly where our kernel modules have a weakness. Or differently put, where our kernel configuration has its weakness. A module is pretty much all-inclusive. A kernel configuration is minimalistic by nature (hence, one would actually expect reduced functonality). Mixing them gives unwanted results in a pre-dominantly modular configuration. One way to attack it is to make a kernel configuration the same as a bundled set or a preloaded set of modules. This means for example that if you configure ppc(4) into the kernel, you get the acpi attachment even if you don't have device acpi configured into the kernel. This of course may result in unresolved symbols, so it's not a trivial solution. If it's a solution at all... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net