From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ralf Baechle DL5RB Subject: Re: 6PACK - Another question Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:13:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20051102091357.GA2703@linux-mips.org> References: <4368510E.7090006@midcoast.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4368510E.7090006@midcoast.com.au> Sender: linux-hams-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ray Wells Cc: linux-hams@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:39:26PM +1100, Ray Wells wrote: > In the documentation /.../6pack.txt, the author says the driver has only > been tested as a module and not built-in to the kernel. > > Has anyone on this list used the 6pack driver in the built-in version > with kernel 2.2.20? Linux 2.2, that's extremly old - ages from before I took over it's maintainership. But the code actually looks okay. Sure you don't want to upgrade to a piece of software from this decade? > I always opt for built-in drivers for stuff I know I'll use and maybe > this has been my downfall in this case :-( For custom kernels that will save a tiny amount of memory and give a small, almost unmeassurable performance gain. You lose the advantage of for example being able to re-initialize a subsystem by unloading and reloading it's module. Given all that what learned about problems with the 2.2 module loader we can probably declare it a buggy horror trip from today's perspective. > No drama, of course, to recompile the kernel with the driver as a module > but I may as well test the waters first :-) The 2.2 6pack driver looks ok, certainly up to the standards of those days and I wouldn't expect any problems with it from linking it. 73 de DL5RB op Ralf -- Loc. JN47BS / CQ 14 / ITU 28 / DOK A21