Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:55:33 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sio => uart: one port is gone Message-ID: <9D0F7169-9461-4F32-9420-702BED840A20@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <48CE91AB.3000200@icyb.net.ua> References: <48CE59C2.9060307@icyb.net.ua> <BA357CBA-D4F8-44F0-99ED-BDF443DF0AD3@mac.com> <48CE8D2D.4020400@icyb.net.ua> <EAC410B7-9BCD-4759-BD17-95624EE21B04@mac.com> <48CE91AB.3000200@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9D0F7169-9461-4F32-9420-702BED840A20>