From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:39:18 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Question about using mdev for /dev management In-Reply-To: <201112130939.34100.arnout@mind.be> References: <4EDD1149.8060104@carallon.com> <201112130939.34100.arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <20111213143918.2790f6e4@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:39:34 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit : > 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. FWIW, when I initially introduced (based on prior patches) this static /dev vs. devtmpfs vs. mdev vs. udev selection, the mdev and udev choices were independent of devtmpfs, i.e there were using a minimal device tables with /dev/null and /dev/console. But after discussion on the mailing-list, it was decided that it was better to make devtmpfs a requirement when mdev and udev were choosen. See Message-Id: for the initial patch I proposed on December, 5th 2010. And Message-ID: <87r5dgfldw.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> for Peter's answer (December, 17th 2010), saying : """ Thomas> At compile time, only a minimal /dev is created in the filesystem, Thomas> with only "console" and "null". This is done thanks to a small device Thomas> table in target/generic/device_table_mdev_udev.txt. This is done Thomas> directly at the configuration level (fs/Config.in). While I agree we need the minimal device table for /etc/shadow and similar permissions, do we really need to support mdev/udev without devtmpfs? It's been in the kernel now for close to 2 years, it's very small and it simplifies (and speeds up) the boot sequence quite a lot. """ Regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com