From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261226AbVCADrI (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:47:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261227AbVCADrI (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:47:08 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:16097 "EHLO parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261226AbVCADrE (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:47:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4223E59D.3060902@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:46:37 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: adaplas@pol.net, linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: disallow modular framebuffers References: <20050301024118.GF4021@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20050301024118.GF4021@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > Hi, > > while looking how to fix modular FB_SAVAGE_* (both FB_SAVAGE_I2C=m and > FB_SAVAGE_ACCEL=m are currently broken) I asked myself: > > Do modular framebuffers really make sense? > > OK, distributions like to make everything modular, but all the > framebuffer drivers I've looked at parse driver specific options in > their *_setup function only in the non-modular case. > > And most framebuffer drivers contain a module_exit function. > Is there really any case where this is both reasonable and working? It depends on the driver's level of hardware support, and the likely configuration of the hardware at boot time. It is a case-by-case basis. Jeff