On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> I think we'd be better off with a small stub that is always built into the
>> kernel for phy_read/phy_write, etc or the function pointer indirection
>> mechanism.
>
> And then instead of build failures, you
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 2, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andy Fleming wrote:
I'm partial to the select-it-if-you-need-it paradigm.
AFAICS this can all be solved by the platform Kconfig ensuring that
phylib=y
I don't care for this as it means making sure each platform/board port
On Jun 2, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Andy Fleming wrote:
I'm partial to the select-it-if-you-need-it paradigm.
AFAICS this can all be solved by the platform Kconfig ensuring that
phylib=y
I don't care for this as it means making sure each platform/board port
gets it right.
The whole world isn't embedded ppc, we use this stuff elsewhere too.
You guys need to figure out something that doesn't require phylib
be built-in on ALL platforms, but only the platforms that require
it.
I wasn't suggesting we build it always, just not let it be built as
a module.
I was
Andy Fleming wrote:
I'm partial to the select-it-if-you-need-it paradigm.
AFAICS this can all be solved by the platform Kconfig ensuring that phylib=y
Jeff
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/li
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
in that th
On Jun 2, 2008, at 14:30, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
If you really think the core of the phylib should be able to be
built as a module than we could possibly add function pointers to
phy_dev to do the real phy_read()/phy_write() and change phy_read/
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
in that the bus driver and co
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:25:14AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >> Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>> The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
> >>> a module. This isn't really any diffe
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
in that the bus driver and co
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:25:14AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
>>> a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
>>> in that the bus drive
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
in that the bus driver and core need to be built into the kernel.
Signed-off-b
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:25:14AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> The core provides functions like phy_read/phy_write. Andy has recently
> introduced board level workaround/fixups. The problem is these
> workarounds tend to use phy_read/phy_write and the board/platform code is
> not built as modul
On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
in that the bus driver and core need to be built into the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMA
Kumar Gala wrote:
The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
in that the bus driver and core need to be built into the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Jeff, please consider this for
The core portions of the phylib aren't capable of being used as
a module. This isn't really any different than something like i2c
in that the bus driver and core need to be built into the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Jeff, please consider this for 2.6.26 as w/o it we
16 matches
Mail list logo
