Re: [PATCH v3] x86: sysfb: remove sysfb when probing real hw
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date: 2013-12-19 17:09:34
Also in:
lkml, stable
* David Herrmann [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
* David Herrmann [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
--- a/drivers/video/fbmem.c +++ b/drivers/video/fbmem.c@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ #include <asm/fb.h> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) +#include <asm/sysfb.h> +#endifI think this can be written as: #ifdef CONFIG_X86 # include <asm/sysfb.h> #endif also ... the dependency on a large, unrelated option like CONFIG_X86 looks pretty ugly here - is there no other, more specific CONFIG_ option that can be used here - such as CONFIG_FB_SIMPLE or CONFIG_X86_SYSFB?quoted
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86) + sysfb_unregister(apert, primary); +#endifDitto.CONFIG_X86 is probably never 'm'.. will fix that. It was CONFIG_X86_SYSFB before and that works, too, but the broader X86 seemed more appropriate as sysfb is available on all x86.
Well, sysfb is available if CONFIG_X86_SYSFB is set, right? So on !CONFIG_X86_SYSFB x86 kernels this code should not run, right?
Note that I have patches here locally which move sysfb_register/unregister to drivers/video/sysfb.c and add include/linux/sysfb.h with dummies if CONFIG_SYSFB is not selected to avoid the #ifdef. This will allow other architectures to do gfx-hand-over, too. They seem too big for stable, though. That's why I split them up and added it to x86/kernel/sysfb.c first.
Yeah, it's fine to do those cleanups after the minimal fix. But using a sensible config option must still be done - we cannot just slap broad CONFIG_X86 dependencies into random code. Thanks, Ingo