Tom Rini trini at
Sat Jan 26 03:21:39 EST 2002

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:03:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Hey all.  Currently in the linuxppc_2_4 tree, we conditionally compile
> > the screen_info struct on CONFIG_VGA_CONSOLE (and export the symbol
> > based on that too).  In linuxppc_2_4_devel, Geert checked in vga16fb
> > fixes 2 months ago or so that added tests for CONFIG_FB_VGA16{,_MODULE}.
> > And just recently Hollis Blanchard posted a patch to add vesafb to this
> > list as well.   So now the question is, shouldn't we just blindly
> > allocate this struct and always export the screen_info symbol?  This
> > makes the most sense IMHO, since the point of modules is that you can
> > add things on later without having to recompile.  But if people are
> > concerned about the extra space, perhaps we should do it based on
> > CONFIG_FB (I don't believe VGA_CONSOLE actually needs the symbol to be
> > exported, since it's a bool).   Comments?
> Note that vga16fb and vgacon use screen_info, through the ORIG_* macros
> (defined in <linux/tty.h>), e.g.
> #define ORIG_VIDEO_ISVGA        (screen_info.orig_video_isVGA)

Right.  The problem is that exporting a module symbol based on CONFIG_
option is bad taste.  I'd rather not do it based on FB_VGA16_MODULE ||

Tom Rini (TR1265)

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list