Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:33:18 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> Cc: Carl <k0802647@telus.net>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: listing all modules compiled into a kernel instance Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103011524190.56729@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20110301204124.GD76063@eggman.experts-exchange.com> References: <4D6C78D3.5090803@telus.net> <198718A4-4A82-4FDB-A8F6-400F132A649E@gsoft.com.au> <201103010800.35666.jhb@freebsd.org> <4D6D50AC.701@telus.net> <20110301204124.GD76063@eggman.experts-exchange.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:01:48PM -0800, Carl thus spake: >> >> I can explicitly include ucom in a kernel by adding "device ucom" in the >> configuration file, in which case it would call DRIVER_MODULE(), right? >> That would then make it appear in the "kldstat -v" list? So why is it a >> driver when it's done explicitly, but not a driver when done implicitly? >> That makes no sense to me since the functionality doesn't change. IMHO, >> this is a bug that needs to be fixed, not just for ucom but any >> implicitly included driver. >> >> Who should submit a bug report? > > There was a documentation bug that was put in regarding the ucom device, and > it was to update the device name in the documentation. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=155074 > > I don't know if a PR is still required, but this may be worth a look first. usb_quirk.4 appears to be a copy and edit of ucom.4. The device name edit was missed, so it still referred to ucom. I don't think this affects what you're talking about.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1103011524190.56729>