[arch-dev-public] [RFC] removing blacklisting of framebuffers from the udev package

[Ionut Biru]

On 02/07/2012 06:59 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> Currently the udev package ships
> 
> /lib/modules.d/framebuffer_blacklist.conf
> 
> This file blacklists all the framebuffer modules present on the build
> machine. This does not feel quite right to me, and it is not exactly
> self-documenting what bug is being fixed.
> 
> If possible, I'd like to drop this file and add more specific
> blacklisting where needed. If I understand correctly, the main issue
> is in the case where proprietary drivers are used (nvidia / catalyst)
> and the opensource drivers are loaded instead. If this is the only
> problem, I'd like to propose we solve it as follows:
> 
> Add
> 
> /lib/modules.d/nvidia.conf:
> blacklist nouveau
> blacklist nvidiafb
> 
> to the nvidia package (and analogously to the catalyst package in aur).
> 

instead of trying to avoid such issues, why not drop most of
framebuffers from kernel instead?

that's a more logical step.

for example, fedora only has enabled in his kernel:

config-generic:CONFIG_VIDEO_FB_IVTV=m
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_I810=m
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_I810_GTF=y
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_I810_I2C=y
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_TILEBLITTING=y
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_VESA=y
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_VGA16=m
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_VIRTUAL=m
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_VOODOO1=m
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_EFI=y
config-generic:CONFIG_FB_UDL=m



> This is exactly what /lib/modules.d is for, so it makes a lot of sense
> to me. Are there any other use-cases I have missed?
> 
> I'll push an udev package with this change to staging shortly, so
> people can try it out if they wish.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tom


-- 
Ionuț

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 554 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20120207/4f84d644/attachment.asc>