Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code,Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code

2016-02-29 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
On 26/02/16 19:21, David Miller wrote: > From: Tomi Valkeinen > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:58:00 +0200 > >> While doing this, did you just go forward removing the module support, >> or did you check if it would be trivial to make the driver build as a >> module? I wouldn't

Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code,Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code

2016-02-29 Thread Tomi Valkeinen
On 26/02/16 19:21, David Miller wrote: > From: Tomi Valkeinen > Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:58:00 +0200 > >> While doing this, did you just go forward removing the module support, >> or did you check if it would be trivial to make the driver build as a >> module? I wouldn't be surprised if in some

Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code,Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code

2016-02-26 Thread David Miller
From: Tomi Valkeinen Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:58:00 +0200 > While doing this, did you just go forward removing the module support, > or did you check if it would be trivial to make the driver build as a > module? I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases all that would

Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code,Re: [PATCH 0/3] video/fbdev: avoid module usage in non-modular sparc code

2016-02-26 Thread David Miller
From: Tomi Valkeinen Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:58:00 +0200 > While doing this, did you just go forward removing the module support, > or did you check if it would be trivial to make the driver build as a > module? I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases all that would need to > be done is