From: Michael S. Zick <minimod@morethan.org>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] Question about using mdev for /dev management
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:58:08 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201112130858.10405.minimod@morethan.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201112130939.34100.arnout@mind.be>
On Tue December 13 2011, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> On Monday 05 December 2011 19:45:29 Will Wagner wrote:
> > Firstly it replaces $(TARGET_DIR)/init with fs/cpio/init which attempts
> > to mount devtmpfs. My kernel doesn't support this (it's too old) and I'd
> > rather not get this trace in the boot (it worries other developers).
>
> I didn't realize that mdev worked without devtmpfs in the kernel...
>
It does, and it has for nearly a decade. ;-)
With tmpfs sysfs available in the kernel and a tmpfs mounted on /dev -
an mdev -s will populate it for you.
It was only recent changes to the BR configuration dependences that make
(when looking at the BR menu) that mdev/udev requires devtmpfs.
That was just a decision by the project to move forward with the new
and drop the old but it isn't dropped in the kernel. ;-)
Mike
> If devtmpfs exists (and it does for all currently supported kernels), then
> it should be mounted as soon as possible. It is normally mounted
> automatically by the kernel, except when it runs /init for an initramfs.
> That's why we have this extra /init script for the cpio rootfs.
>
> You could add a check to the init script that mounts a normal tmpfs on
> /dev if the mount fails (and redirect its output to /dev/null).
>
> > I assume that for mdev we could not replace init but instead make sure
> > that /dev/console (and possibly /dev/null?) exist?
>
> Yeah, actually, I think /dev/console and /dev/null should be created
> on the rootfs even if devtmpfs is used. Which brings us to:
>
>
> > The other small issue I have is that mdev fails to spot one of the
> > kernel devices (as the driver doesn't have a sysfs entry) so it needs
> > adding manually. I do that by adding an entry to BR2_ROOTFS_DEVICE_TABLE
> > which works fine, but doesn't seem ideal as I thought device entries
> > were meant to be set in BR2_ROOTFS_STATIC_DEVICE_TABLE, but that is not
> > offered unless static devices used. Is there a better way to do this or
> > should I just leave it as is?
>
> If you ask me, it's OK to add /dev entries in the BR2_ROOTFS_DEVICE_TABLE.
> In fact, I think /dev/console and /dev/null should be put in there. But
> I've never gotten around to roll a patch for it.
>
> Regards,
> Arnout
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-13 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-05 18:45 [Buildroot] Question about using mdev for /dev management Will Wagner
2011-12-13 8:39 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2011-12-13 13:39 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2011-12-13 14:58 ` Michael S. Zick [this message]
2011-12-13 15:24 ` Michael S. Zick
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201112130858.10405.minimod@morethan.org \
--to=minimod@morethan.org \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox