On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:07:16PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote: > Jos� Fonseca wrote: > > >I would also like to discuss the possibility of: > > - dropping the DRM(my_func)() for drm_my_func(). If I'm not mistaken, > > these symbols aren't exported to the rest of the kernel so there > > isn't any conflict when several DRM's are loaded simulatenously on > > the kernel (or is there?) Besides of reducing some visual clutter > > this would allow to a better parity between the source code and the > > Doxygen generated documentation: at the moment those DRM(...) tags > > have to be eliminated before feeding into Doxygen to allow > > cross-referecing. > > I think you would be fine with multiple modules, but I think it would > break if you had multiple drivers built into the kernel. I'm not sure > about that, though. If it doesn't break (or if we don't care), I'd be > in favor of killing the DRM(...) stuff. > > If a lot of this stuff really is that device independent, why don't we > move it to a separate kernel module? That would save some memory when > multiple DRM drivers are loaded at once.
I don't think the memory saving is very important, since multiple DRM modules must be a rare thing anyway. According with archives (http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/faq/architecture.html#DRM-SUB-DRIVERS), Linus wanted the DRM drivers to be independent. Don't know if he still feels the same, considering the ALSA/OSS modules, or the recent reorganization of AGPGART. Don't know as well if the old "DRM sub-drivers" would do the same thing as these examples. Perhaps we can discuss again this after the janitorial is done, as I don't want to give steps greater than my legs. Jos� Fonseca ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
