2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

[mikpe]

2.5.71 changed the name of the Yenta module from yenta_socket
to yenta. In my case (Latitude with RH9 user-space), this
prevented cardmgr from starting properly.

Quick fix: add 'alias yenta_socket yenta' to /etc/modprobe.conf,
or s/yenta_socket/yenta/ in the appropriate config file (but
then you make multi-booting 2.4/2.5 more difficult).

/Mikael

Re: 2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

[Russell King]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 03:25:16PM +0200, mikpe@csd.uu.se wrote:
> 2.5.71 changed the name of the Yenta module from yenta_socket
> to yenta. In my case (Latitude with RH9 user-space), this
> prevented cardmgr from starting properly.
> 
> Quick fix: add 'alias yenta_socket yenta' to /etc/modprobe.conf,
> or s/yenta_socket/yenta/ in the appropriate config file (but
> then you make multi-booting 2.4/2.5 more difficult).

What do people want to do about this?  I have no particular desire to
answer all those emails asking about this, so unless Dominik objects,
I think we should just rename "yenta.c" to "yenta_socket.c" so we have
back-compatibility.

(This issue has appeared because yenta_socket.ko used to be created
by combining yenta.o with pci_socket.o.  Since pci_socket.c no longer
exists, we create the module from yenta.c directly, so its now called
yenta.ko.)

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: 2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

[mikpe]

Russell King writes:
 > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 03:25:16PM +0200, mikpe@csd.uu.se wrote:
 > > 2.5.71 changed the name of the Yenta module from yenta_socket
 > > to yenta. In my case (Latitude with RH9 user-space), this
 > > prevented cardmgr from starting properly.
 > > 
 > > Quick fix: add 'alias yenta_socket yenta' to /etc/modprobe.conf,
 > > or s/yenta_socket/yenta/ in the appropriate config file (but
 > > then you make multi-booting 2.4/2.5 more difficult).
 > 
 > What do people want to do about this?  I have no particular desire to
 > answer all those emails asking about this, so unless Dominik objects,
 > I think we should just rename "yenta.c" to "yenta_socket.c" so we have
 > back-compatibility.
 > 
 > (This issue has appeared because yenta_socket.ko used to be created
 > by combining yenta.o with pci_socket.o.  Since pci_socket.c no longer
 > exists, we create the module from yenta.c directly, so its now called
 > yenta.ko.)

I'd prefer compatibility, if there are no technical reasons for
breaking it. Reverting to the old name in 2.5.72 sounds like a
good idea.

Re: 2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 16:38, mikpe@csd.uu.se wrote:
> Russell King writes:
>  > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 03:25:16PM +0200, mikpe@csd.uu.se wrote:
>  > > 2.5.71 changed the name of the Yenta module from yenta_socket
>  > > to yenta. In my case (Latitude with RH9 user-space), this
>  > > prevented cardmgr from starting properly.
>  > > 
>  > > Quick fix: add 'alias yenta_socket yenta' to /etc/modprobe.conf,
>  > > or s/yenta_socket/yenta/ in the appropriate config file (but
>  > > then you make multi-booting 2.4/2.5 more difficult).
>  > 
>  > What do people want to do about this?  I have no particular desire to
>  > answer all those emails asking about this, so unless Dominik objects,
>  > I think we should just rename "yenta.c" to "yenta_socket.c" so we have
>  > back-compatibility.
>  > 
>  > (This issue has appeared because yenta_socket.ko used to be created
>  > by combining yenta.o with pci_socket.o.  Since pci_socket.c no longer
>  > exists, we create the module from yenta.c directly, so its now called
>  > yenta.ko.)
> 
> I'd prefer compatibility, if there are no technical reasons for
> breaking it. Reverting to the old name in 2.5.72 sounds like a
> good idea.

I must agree with. I think backwards compatibility is important if we
want widespread adoption of 2.6 from the beginning. But there's a
question I had in mind for long time: is cardmgr really needed? Isn't
hotplug more than enough to handle CardBus devices?

Re: 2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

[Dominik Brodowski]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:53:07PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
>
> I must agree with. I think backwards compatibility is important if we
> want widespread adoption of 2.6 from the beginning. But there's a
> question I had in mind for long time: is cardmgr really needed? Isn't
> hotplug more than enough to handle CardBus devices?

One aim of my work is to deprecate cardmgr for both CardBus (32-bit) and
PCMCIA (16-bit) devices. For CardBus, most pieces should be there already,
for PCMCIA the road is much longer.

	Dominik

Re: 2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

[Russell King]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:53:07PM +0200, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> I must agree with. I think backwards compatibility is important if we
> want widespread adoption of 2.6 from the beginning. But there's a
> question I had in mind for long time: is cardmgr really needed? Isn't
> hotplug more than enough to handle CardBus devices?

We're slowly working towards the point where our reliance on cardmgr
getting less and less.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: 2.5.71 cardbus problem + possible solution

[Dominik Brodowski]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:38:52PM +0200, mikpe@csd.uu.se wrote:
>  > What do people want to do about this?  I have no particular desire to
>  > answer all those emails asking about this, so unless Dominik objects,
>  > I think we should just rename "yenta.c" to "yenta_socket.c" so we have
>  > back-compatibility.

Agreed.

	Dominik