On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 11:22, Scott Bronson wrote:
> > 1) CONFIG_DRM_SIS needs to require CONFIG_FB_SIS_315.
> > Currently, you can select CONFIG_DRM_SIS without
> > CONFIG_FB_SIS_315. If you do that, you get undefined symbol
> > errors for sis_malloc and sis_free.
Not true. DRM_SIS does NOT require FB_SIS_315. It requires either
FB_SIS_300 *or* FB_SIS_315. (But since DRI is not supported on the 315
series, that whole issue does not make much sense...)
> 2) CONFIG_FB_SIS must be compiled into the kernel (i.e. NOT a
> module).
Not true either. If you compile DRM as a module as well, you don't get
any unresolved symbols. So it's either 1) both into the kernel, 2)
both as modules or 3) sisfb into the kernel and DRM as a module.
> > Currently, you can compile it as a module.
> > If you do that, you ALSO get undefined symbol errors for
> > sis_malloc and sis_free.
>
> These requirements could be enforced with CML rules. Before I
> submit the patch to do this, I'd like to know if that's the proper
> fix! Would it be better to just make CONFIG_FB_SIS able to be built
> as a module instead?
> For the rules - go for it.
No, please don't.
> For the modular driver ping the sisfb
> maintainer first and check what is in the pipeline.
Erm, that's me I think (apart from the fbdev api stuff)... Well, not
much for now as I am on vacation.
Thomas
-- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria mailto:thomas@winischhofer.net http://www.winischhofer.net/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:20 EST