Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:03:59 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Brandon Falk <falkman@gamozo.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kldload vs Statically compiled in kernel Message-ID: <20100317040359.fc64cc85.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <4BA02466.1070603@gamozo.org> References: <4BA02466.1070603@gamozo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:37:58 -0500, Brandon Falk <falkman@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, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100317040359.fc64cc85.freebsd>