Re: [PATCH] DRM depends on ???

[Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@aitel.hist.no>]

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/