Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261434AbVE3LMG (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 07:12:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261438AbVE3LJd (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 07:09:33 -0400 Received: from hermine.aitel.hist.no ([158.38.50.15]:36871 "HELO hermine.aitel.hist.no") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261434AbVE3LHZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 07:07:25 -0400 Message-ID: <429AF53B.3080805@aitel.hist.no> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 13:12:59 +0200 From: Helge Hafting User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kyle Moffett CC: Geert Uytterhoeven , Dave Airlie , Dave Jones , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Development , dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] DRM depends on ??? References: <20050528215005.GA5990@redhat.com> <1FA58BE7-0EE6-432B-9383-F489F9854DBE@mac.com> <64148E06-2DFA-41A5-9D86-5F34DCAAF9F4@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <64148E06-2DFA-41A5-9D86-5F34DCAAF9F4@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1672 Lines: 48 Kyle Moffett wrote: > On May 29, 2005, at 15:58:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>> What Kyle said is the correct answer... we either keep this lovely >>> construct (I'll add a comment for 2.6.13) or we go back to the old >>> intermodule or module_get stuff... DRM built-in with modular AGP is >>> always >>> wrong... or at least I'll get a hundred e-mails less every month if I >>> say it is .. >> >> >> And what if we don't have AGP at all? Or no PCI? > > > Then DRM detects that at configure time and excludes the code that > requires > AGP. Basically, the following are valid configurations: > > DRM=y AGP=y # DRM will use AGP > DRM=y AGP=n # DRM will not use AGP > > DRM=m AGP=y # DRM will use AGP > DRM=m AGP=m # DRM will use AGP (DRM module depends on AGP module) > DRM=m AGP=n # DRM will not use AGP > > DRM=n AGP=* # DRM isn't compiled and therefore doesn't care about AGP > > The only invalid configuration is DRM=y AGP=m, which seems silly, > although > theoretically in that case DRM should exclude AGP support. Why is that case invalid? I may have DRM=y so I get DRM on my PCI graphichs card. Then I might load an agp module in order to use agp on *some other* agp card. I have no problem with DRM=y,AGP=m being invalid for the common single-card setup, but there are multi-card setups too. Not that I need this special case personally - I have two cards but don't use modules. Helge Hafting - 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/