On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 11:34:45PM +0100, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> > The subject says it all. Is there any particular (technical) reason
> > why I must have both the generic pcmcia code and the controller support
> > built-in, or build all of them as mo
> Wasn't there some strange laptop model which had PCMCIA floppy/CDROM,
> which are unavailable to bootstrap process, unless PCMCIA is supported
> at the booting kernel ?
I have seen a couple where the floppy/cdrom are supported by the bios but
then vanish. Generally they are left mapped which me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Is there a technical reason for this? Not that I know of; but then I
> also cannot think of a good reason for wanting, say, the generic code
> built in but the controller support as modules. I do see reasonable
> arguments for all-builtin or all-modules.
register_ss_
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, David Hinds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 11:34:45PM +0100, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> > The subject says it all. Is there any particular (technical) reason why I
> > must have both the generic pcmcia code and the controller support
> > built-in, or build all of them as mod
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 11:34:45PM +0100, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> The subject says it all. Is there any particular (technical) reason
> why I must have both the generic pcmcia code and the controller support
> built-in, or build all of them as modules?
>
> /Tobias
Wasn't there some strange lap
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 10:44:30PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
>
> If you have a laptop with an assortment of cards, you might want to have
> the generic builtin and the cards themselves as modules.
No, that's ok, and that's supported with the current config scripts.
The original question was
David Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Is there a technical reason for this? Not that I know of; but then I
> also cannot think of a good reason for wanting, say, the generic code
> built in but the controller support as modules. I do see reasonable
> arguments for all-builtin or all-mo
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:10:38PM -0500, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> Hmmm, I'm not the only one who doesn't like modules depending
> on other modules. I suppose this is part paranoia about extra
> complexity leading to problems, and part desire to avoid the
> module overhead for common code tha
>> The subject says it all. Is there any particular (technical) reason
>> why I must have both the generic pcmcia code and the controller
>> support built-in, or build all of them as modules?
>
> Is there a technical reason for this? Not that I know of; but then I
> also cannot think of a good re
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 11:34:45PM +0100, Tobias Ringstrom wrote:
> The subject says it all. Is there any particular (technical) reason why I
> must have both the generic pcmcia code and the controller support
> built-in, or build all of them as modules?
Is there a technical reason for this? Not
The subject says it all. Is there any particular (technical) reason why I
must have both the generic pcmcia code and the controller support
built-in, or build all of them as modules?
/Tobias
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [E
11 matches
Mail list logo
