kldload vs Statically compiled in kernel
Polytropon
freebsd at edvax.de
Wed Mar 17 03:04:02 UTC 2010
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:37:58 -0500, Brandon Falk <falkman at gamozo.org> wrote:
> Hello fellow FreeBSD mates,
>
> I've always statically compiled in my modules into my kernel, rather
> then using kldload, or throwing them in /boot/loader.conf. I'm just
> wondering if there are actually any advantages to doing it this way.
There's only one important point that doesn't seem to be
achievable using the means of /boot/loader.conf: It is
the case if you have to make settings that are needed to
be present at compile time. An example:
device bktr
options BROOKTREE_SYSTEM_DEFAULT=BROOKTREE_PAL
options BKTR_USE_PLL
options BKTR_GPIO_ACCESS
options BKTR_USE_FREEBSD_SMBUS
Allthough you can load bktr.ko, you can't specify those
parameters. The same seems to be true for such settings:
options SC_DFLT_FONT
makeoptions SC_DFLT_FONT=iso
options ATKBD_DFLT_KEYMAP
makeoptions ATKBD_DFLT_KEYMAP=german.iso
options UKBD_DFLT_KEYMAP
makeoptions UKBD_DFLT_KEYMAP=german.iso
Another scenario, well, it's more an attitude, is to taylor
a kernel exactly to present hardware, letting it contain
only those components that *need* to be present. This can
be required when operating on low space.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list