Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] Compiling framebuffer modules

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] Compiling framebuffer modules
  • Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:38:12 +0000 (UTC)

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, David Moberg wrote:

On 12/15/05, sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
See http://keesan.freeshell.org/bl for
2.2.16 kernel bzImage.vam which supports
vesafb (vesa 2.0 cards)
atyfb (ati mach64)
matroxfb (as module only). - download my matroxfb.o

Instructions in /bl/blfiles.htm
....

David Moberg helped a lot with this and offered to compile the same thing
for 2.4.31 with usb-storage and the rest of his 2.4.31 usb support. In
2.4 atyfb will be a module, but vesafb has to be built into the kernel.

David, will the usb devices all be modules?

Yes, unless you want a bigger kernel. It is already 710K+.

This kernel might support booting from memory stick (scsi and usb
required) - should usb-storage be compiled into the kernel to avoid the
need for initrd?

You will need an initrd anyway, no point in making the kernel even
bigger.

Do you mean an initrd to boot from memory stick (insmod usb-storage and what else?).

Take a look at config.vam (vesa-ati-matrox) and let him know if you want
anything added. This config is loosely modelled on BL2 but also has loop
built in. No network file systems or firewall, but they can be added on
request. It is over 500K and therefore bz not z.

How much larger would the same kernel be in 2.4, without the USB?

I see why Steven is sticking with 2.2.2.6!!!
Too bad it won't work right with most usb-storage devices.

About 200K. Since USB is completely modular, it adds a negligible
amount.

I have no idea what Linus and company have done to make the
latest Linux versions so big. 2.6 is gigantic, even with the linux-tiny
patches which strip out a lot of core functionality. IIRC from the
last time I tried 2.6, it was 350K for a minimal kernel that did
absolutely nothing. Adding IDE support alone pushed it above
500K.

Is it possible to edit the kernel Makefile to make a smaller kernel?
What do you mean by core functionality?

Is anyone trying to make a smaller equivalent of 2.6 which still has the more commonly required functions such as USB? Why could 2.2.26 not be made to handle usb-storage correctly? Maybe someone will fix it.

I can use two of our usb storage devices from a DOS boot disk with maybe 20K of extra drivers.

Slackware 10.2 has a 'testing' 2.6 kernel. The bzImage is 3.1MB.
That is with heavy compression!! Obviously, the kernel alone will
take up all of the extended memory on anything older than a
Pentium.

I can't imagine how large the kernel source code must be by now.
Does anyone offer an i386-only kernel source package?
I deleted all sorts of stuff for other architectures to save disk space.


The link in the following post might be helpful, if it was not dead. :(
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9711.2/0110.html

I will look around for more information on making Linux smaller
for simplicity and for older hardware.

That could prove very useful for some future BL.


David
_______________________________________________
BasLinux mailing list
BasLinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/baslinux


keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page