On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:32:42PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:30:38PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> > But you don't want /boot to try to load the module if the ffs code is
> > present in the kernel. Since /boot has no way of knowing what is in the
> > loaded kernel it
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 06:30:38PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> But you don't want /boot to try to load the module if the ffs code is
> present in the kernel. Since /boot has no way of knowing what is in the
> loaded kernel it is inappropriate for it to try to load the module file
> and for the ker
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:06:28AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:38:53AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> > IIRC you can explicitly request (from boot.cfg) that any module be
> > loaded. There is no need for boot itself to always try to load
> > such a module.
>
> Yes the
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> Well, it worked for me ;-)
>
> atf_machine The machine type name detected by ATF. This should
>not be tunable but is provided for symmetry with
>atf_arch.
My
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:58:50PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> I think there is no such thing as "atf_machine".
Well, it worked for me ;-)
atf_machine The machine type name detected by ATF. This should
not be tunable but is provided for symmetry with
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:29:55PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 03:11:58PM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > Use "atf_arch" instead of "atf_machine"; see atf-config(1).
>
> What is the difference?
I think there is no such thing as "atf_machine".
- Jukka
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 03:11:58PM +, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> Log Message:
> Use "atf_arch" instead of "atf_machine"; see atf-config(1).
What is the difference? atf-config(1) is mumbling about unnamed bugs
and upstream fixes, but does not explain what differs and which should
be prefered.
Mar
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:38:53AM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> IIRC you can explicitly request (from boot.cfg) that any module be
> loaded. There is no need for boot itself to always try to load
> such a module.
Yes there is, and I agree that this is the proper way to load it if you
create a spe
