FSO kernel configuration [Was: Re: Trouble Building Kernel]

[shawnzier at gmail.com]

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 01:23:48AM +0800, Andy Green wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> 
> |> Any recent OM kernel package should have this already.  I don't
> |> know what the deal is with Debian and which config they use.  The
> |> ones that OM use to generate the packages are defconfig-gta01 and
> |> defconfig-gta02, these are set to cook modules for g_ether and the
> |> other gadgets.
> |>
> | I'm not sure this is the case.
> |
> | I am using the latest fso-unstable images from
> | http://shr.bearstech.com
> 
> Well I did say "OM kernel package".
> 
I'm sorry, I thought FSO was an openmoko distribution. I just assumed that because Mickey seems to be the leader on that project and he had an @openmoko.org address. 
> | I'm sshing over the usb networking connection and lsmod gives me
> | nothing. Shouldn't the usb networking module show up in lsmod if it
> | is compiled as a module?
> 
> Yes, it's a pretty good test.
> 
> | Should I file a bug for this at trac.freesmartphone.org? Is this an
> | oversight or did they intend to build their kernel/rootfs this way?
> | Maybe the autobuilder is setup to use defconfig-2.6.24 instead?
> 
> I have no idea about FSO intention about the kernel or which config they
> like to use.  defconfig-2.6.24 is nice because you can just update the
> monolithic kernel and forget about modules for most cases, but the
> defconfig-gta02 that makes more modules is best for packaging since it
> gives the flexibility about gadget mode you want.
> 
> I would bring it up with them, maybe it's like it is right now because
> nobody mentioned about different config possibility being useful.
> 
Ok. I guess I should email Mickey directly then or should I post to the devel list? Thanks for the help thus far.