Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-17 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Monday 16 June 2008 17:15:37 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: CMake has a cache, where the values of variables are stored, e.g. if an option is enabled or not, or where a library has been found (e.g.

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-17 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi, I won't to that w/ my TreeBuild. It is intentionally limited on easily structured packages. People should either structure their packages properly use something else ;-P For simple packages autoconf+automake+libtool is already near at your

Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

2008-06-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 17 June 2008 15:46:36 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Monday 16 June 2008 17:15:37 Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: CMake has a cache, where the values of variables are stored, e.g. if an option

Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Tim Bird
Hi all, I am working with a product team on bootup time issues. One technique that we are forward-porting from an old kernel (and that I thought I might work on mainlining) is to compile modules statically into the kernel, but defer their initialization until after boot time. Normally, module

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread David VomLehn
Tim Bird wrote: Hi all, I am working with a product team on bootup time issues. One technique that we are forward-porting from an old kernel (and that I thought I might work on mainlining) is to compile modules statically into the kernel, but defer their initialization until after boot time.

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Jörn Engel
On Tue, 17 June 2008 11:23:18 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: I'm not that happy using an ioctl for this trigger. What is the preferred method of activating a kernel feature like this? I presume something in /proc or /sys, but I'm not sure. I personally would be unhappy with any kind of interface

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Jim Freeman
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 09:07:51PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote: On Tue, 17 June 2008 11:23:18 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: I'm not that happy using an ioctl for this trigger. What is the preferred method of activating a kernel feature like this? I presume something in /proc or /sys, but I'm not

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Tim Bird
Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 17 June 2008 11:23:18 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: I'm not that happy using an ioctl for this trigger. What is the preferred method of activating a kernel feature like this? I presume something in /proc or /sys, but I'm not sure. I personally would be unhappy with any

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Tim Bird
Jim Freeman wrote: Run modprobe? Have it do just the _init bits without a load/link of the actual module text? Interesting... Maybe I could overload sys_init_module(). I'll take a look at this. -- Tim = Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Jörn Engel
On Tue, 17 June 2008 12:52:22 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 17 June 2008 11:23:18 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: I'm not that happy using an ioctl for this trigger. What is the preferred method of activating a kernel feature like this? I presume something in /proc or /sys, but

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Jörn Engel
On Tue, 17 June 2008 12:55:31 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: Sorry - I responded too quickly. I'm not sure I follow the original suggestion. How would I call the open function of a module that is not initialized yet? Hmm, good point. I guess that suggestion has just failed the reality test. Jörn

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Josh Boyer
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:23:19 +0200 Jörn Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 17 June 2008 12:55:31 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: Sorry - I responded too quickly. I'm not sure I follow the original suggestion. How would I call the open function of a module that is not initialized yet?

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Stefan Richter
On Tue, 17 June 2008 12:55:31 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: Sorry - I responded too quickly. I'm not sure I follow the original suggestion. How would I call the open function of a module that is not initialized yet? You will be able to open a character device file as soon as cdev_init()

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Johannes Stezenbach
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:48:27AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: On Tue, 17 June 2008 12:55:31 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:28:29 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: | One of the main sub-systems that we defer initialization of this | way is USB, and this saves quite a bit of time. (Of

Re: Recommendation for activating a deferred module init in the kernel

2008-06-17 Thread Stefan Richter
Johannes Stezenbach wrote: I think the USB bus enumeration can take significant time: recognize a device is connected, turn on bus power, try to read descriptors (bus powered devices might be slow to respond after power up). And this will happen even with drivers_autoprobe == 0, right?