Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:13:10 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: sio => uart: one port is gone Message-ID: <3B9B5EED-6627-43F8-A5FC-7B2C7B2D38ED@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <200809151522.08679.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <48CE59C2.9060307@icyb.net.ua> <48CE91AB.3000200@icyb.net.ua> <9D0F7169-9461-4F32-9420-702BED840A20@mac.com> <200809151522.08679.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 15, 2008, at 12:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > 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. Well, don't do that then. Just have the device probe check if acpi is supported and attach if yes. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B9B5EED-6627-43F8-A5FC-7B2C7B2D38ED>