Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:53:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:53:32 -0500 Received: from www.transvirtual.com ([206.14.214.140]:18190 "EHLO www.transvirtual.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:53:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:52:59 -0800 (PST) From: James Simmons To: Sven cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux Fbdev development list , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] [PATCH] fbdev fbgen cleanup In-Reply-To: <20020123183102.A3780@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > The correct fix is to do something like fb_info.node = NODEV; > > And not B_FREE ? > > I am unsure about this, but i notice that in the 2.4.17 kernel + pm3fb, the > value assigned to .node was -1, which correspond to B_FREE and not NODEV > (which is 0). Looking at it your right. It should be B_FREE. > That said, since it is almost never used, it would maybe be best to move it > out of the fbdevs and into some of the more generic layers. I agree. In fact it is already does set it. Form rgeister_framebuffer fb_info->node = mk_kdev(FB_MAJOR, i); So why does any fbdev driver touch it? > Also, since when does the B_FREE or NODEV exists ? I did put the changes into > a #ifdef kernel 2.5, and kept the -1 for kernels 2.4, but i guess i could > remove this check altogether if the NODEV was present from the begining. And > what about 2.2 kernels ? It is a 2.5.X thing. - 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/