[lk ppl have a look at the start of this thread in the dri-devel archives on marc.theaimsgroup.com...]
> I guess one (unpleasant) way to make it work would be to add the version to > all the symbols in the device-independent layer. Instead of drm_foo you'd > have drm_foo_100 or drm_foo_101 or whatever. You could then have multiple > modules loaded or a module loaded with a built-in version. I'm not sure how > happy that would make the kernel maintainers (not to mention how happy it > would make us). :( It's basically like what we have now, except the current > code has the device's name add to all the symbols and is built into the > device-dependent module. Ugh, ugh. > > How do other multi-layer kernel modules handle this? For example, how does > agpgart or iptables do it? they don't let crazy people build stuff outside the tree as far as I know ... also they make you build against the current kernel headers, so we would have to have the drm headers in include/linux/drm or somewhere like that, and build the modules against them, but then what happens if you want to build a new drm module out of tree.. two things make my head hurt, 32/64 interfaces and versioning.., maybe some more experienced kernel heads could join this and tell us the best way to go? Dave. -- David Airlie, Software Engineer http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie pam_smb / Linux DECstation / Linux VAX / ILUG person ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
