[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] pcmcia-cs stuff
From:       Alastair Tse <alastair.gentoo () liquidx ! net>
Date:       2003-01-30 15:12:17
[Download RAW message or body]


On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 06:37, Chad Huneycutt wrote:

> This scheme essentially means that we use yenta_socket and prefer
> pcmcia-cs modules, although I think that if you configure a kernel
> module, it will override the pcmcia-cs module.  The only case that isn't
> handled as I mentioned above is if you *need* the i82365 and ds driver
> from pcmcia-cs.
> 
> Thoughts, objections, discussion?

I have to agree with Chad's thorough analysis of the pcmcia-cs
situation. I was one of the many people who tried (unsuccessfully) to
contribute a pcmcia-cs ebuild that compiled the drivers regardless of
whether CONFIG_PCMCIA was set in the kernel.

I think Chad's plan is the right way to go. As far as my laptop is
concerned, yenta_socket performs *much* better than the i82365 provided
by pcmcia_cs. When I say perform better, it means it actually works
after a suspend/resume cycle and doesn't stall the resume process.

As for the problem with needing to remerge pcmcia-cs[-drivers] after a
kernel recompile, I think that is acceptable. I already have to do that
with alsa-drivers and other kernel modules (qce-ga) that aren't included
with the official kernel sources. So I don't think its a big deal. It
would be good if we could have some sort of metapackage or flag that
could flag certain packages as "requiring re-merge if a kernel is
recompiled."

Cheers,

Alastair
-- 
-=- Alastair Tse -=- LiQUiDx -=- http://www.liquidx.net/ -=-
PhD Student, Lab of Comm Engineering, Uni of Cambridge, UK


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]