Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:00:15 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, imp@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: puc fails to attach serial ports Message-ID: <20051213170015.GA60145@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <200512131101.44375.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20051211181324.G71610@ury.york.ac.uk> <1134481135.15730.76.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <1134485368.15730.95.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <200512131101.44375.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:01:42AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > Because sio(4) only includes sio_puc.c in the kernel if you have 'puc' in your > kernel config, and the puc kernel module only includes the puc files, it > doesn't include sio_puc.c and ppc_puc.c. uart has the same issue as well. > Looking at the three attachments, there's no reason for them to be dependent > on puc, they don't actually call any symbols in the puc(4) kernel module > itself, so they can be compiled into kernels w/o puc without causing any > harm. Then loading puc as a module would work. Here's a patch: Isn't there another way? It just seems wrong to include *_puc bits in the kernel if you don't have 'puc' in your kernel. There are some working on trimming down the kernel for embedded purposes and this patch seems counter to that effort. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is top-posting (putting a reply at the top of the message) frowned upon?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051213170015.GA60145>