Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
On 2009-06-25, at 12:19, Alexander Motin wrote:
Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
=====================================================================
--- head/sys/conf/files Wed Jun 24 15:33:33 2009 (r194843)
+++ head/sys/conf/files Wed Jun 24 15:38:17 2009 (r194844)
@@ -491,12 +491,12 @@ dev/ata/ata_if.m optional ata | atacore
dev/ata/ata-all.c optional ata | atacore
dev/ata/ata-lowlevel.c optional ata | atacore
dev/ata/ata-queue.c optional ata | atacore
+dev/ata/ata-dma.c optional ata | atadma
+dev/ata/ata-sata.c optional ata | atasata
What is atadma and atasata here, kernel options? What for are they
needed? You will not be able to build most of drivers without them,
while enabling them for others will not give you any benefit, just
bigger code size. I think dependency must be reviewed there.
This was supposed to follow the fine grained kernel options route for
various ata subsystems. Both ata-dma.c and ata-sata.c seem orthogonal to
the rest of the ata framework (think ata controller without DMA, which
is often seen in embedded). They could also be made mandatory under
atacore, I have no problem with this approach too.
There is move for fine-grained PCI drivers modularization. But ata-dma.c
and ata-sata.c are not a drivers and are not a kernel modules. They are
not orthogonal, but mandatory requisites of some drivers (all PCI, plus
may be some others).
All kernel build dependencies must be tracked without user influence. So
please, or, as you said, add them both to the atacore, or, as I would
prefer, ata-dma.c to atapci and any other requiring drivers, and
ata-sata.c to atacore.
--
Alexander Motin
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
