From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: the patch set to weaken the dependency between ACPI video driver and i915 driver Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:53:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20090415045359.GA15437@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1239678275.5564.66.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090414193538.GB8304@srcf.ucam.org> <1239757961.5564.109.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:49739 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750726AbZDOEyI (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:54:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1239757961.5564.109.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: yakui_zhao Cc: "lenb@kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:12:41AM +0800, yakui_zhao wrote: > > No, it's *correct*. In a modesetting world, i915 requires ACPI. > Why is the ACPI required by i915 when KMS is used? > It seems that we still can use the KMS with ACPI disabled. > In such case it is unnecessary to load the acpi video driver. You can, but things will break. > In fact what I have done is to weaken the tight dependency. When the > i915 driver is compiled as built-in and the acpi video is compiled as > module, the kernel compilation will be OK. > Before the acpi video driver is loaded, the system is still OK > except that there is no backlight control. I know that that's what you've done. I just don't think it's useful. Weakening the dependency means that you're driving the hardware outside of its design parameters, and I really don't see any reason to do that. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org