Re: DRM function pointer work..

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 12:54:26AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> 
> > I guess one (unpleasant) way to make it work would be to add the version to
> > all the symbols in the device-independent layer.  Instead of drm_foo you'd
> > have drm_foo_100 or drm_foo_101 or whatever.  You could then have multiple
> > modules loaded or a module loaded with a built-in version.  I'm not sure how
> > happy that would make the kernel maintainers (not to mention how happy it
> > would make us). :(  It's basically like what we have now, except the current
> > code has the device's name add to all the symbols and is built into the
> > device-dependent module.  Ugh, ugh.
> >
> > How do other multi-layer kernel modules handle this?  For example, how does
> > agpgart or iptables do it?

Just make sure the driver core and subdrivers are always in sync. That's an
entirely sensible thing and how all other subsystems with lowlevel calls work.