I need reply in Embedded FreeBSD Kernel Theme

Matt Thyer matt.thyer at gmail.com
Sat Jun 12 03:49:24 UTC 2010

On 12 June 2010 12:02, Chargen <chargen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir, first of all: I'm no expert in this field but I've seen your document
> and I'm still wondering why you should impose such a design.
> I suppose it's well thought of but still I'm a bit opposed to binary
> configuration files because I think has to be some kind of dependency on how
> to generate these kind of files (correct me if I'm wrong?)
> as far as your document goes:
> "We will unload all the drivers that indicated with zeros in the module
> metadata file. That would make the OS to be a few of Megabytes."
> unload? what is the logic here?
> I'm sorry but what is the real gain here,
> can you please elaborate?

FreeBSD is already a very modular system and the traditional way (a
traditional way) to build for embedded systems is to follow the
NanoBSD build method (tools included in the source tree) with a
stripped down kernel in which you only load the modules your hardware
requires using the FreeBSD loader (or after the initial boot).

However my Soekris net4801 board still takes about 2.5 minutes to boot
and I think time could be saved by parallel probing of hardware where

Much work has been done on fast boot times in the Linux world
including an impressive demonstration by an Intel team for car
instrumentation panels (on Youtube... Google for fastest Linux boot).

I'd vote for more work on FreeBSD's existing boot method rather than
an entirely new implementation.

What problem are you trying to solve Mohammed ?

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list