From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: RFC: disallow modular framebuffers Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:17:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20050302121744.GA2871@linux-sh.org> References: <20050301024118.GF4021@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050301024118.GF4021@stusta.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Cc: adaplas@pol.net, linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 03:41:18AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Do modular framebuffers really make sense? >=20 Yes, at least these are quite common with embedded systems, quite often without fbcon. It makes little sense to keep the driver constantly loaded if the device is not being used as a console and is only seeing occasional use. It seems more sensible to just fix up the drivers that don't do this right.. most of the broken drivers seem to be geared at x86 anyways where people generally don't seem to care. It may not make a lot of sense with distributions on x86, though it is useful if you are doing driver development on a secondary device. This is certainly a corner case though. --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJa7o1K+teJFxZ9wRAmzXAKCGjNhPV3QJclqFGwKkOofuc6U2uQCdHAbt Qka7Zg9YoBwLEQZNVPMTgP4= =zZ2e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IS0zKkzwUGydFO0o--