Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:55:33 -0700
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@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- From: John Baldwin
- Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- References:
- sio => uart: one port is gone
- From: Andriy Gapon
- Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- From: Marcel Moolenaar
- Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- From: Andriy Gapon
- Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- From: Marcel Moolenaar
- Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- From: Andriy Gapon
- sio => uart: one port is gone
- Prev by Date: Re: Why VESA and DPMS are available only for i386?
- Next by Date: Re: Why VESA and DPMS are available only for i386?
- Previous by thread: Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- Next by thread: Re: sio => uart: one port is gone
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
