[poky] Minimal images: kernel config

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-04-27 01:38 AM, Kang Kai wrote:
> On 2011年02月19日 03:15, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-02-18 12:52 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> I've been getting more and more questions regarding flash footprint,
>>> memory footprint, and boot time. All of these fall under the "minimal
>>> image" heading in my head.
>>>
>>> Currently, poky-image-minimal is a simple subset of poky-image-sato. It
>>> uses busybox, but is still dynamically linked and uses the same
>>> somewhat-generic kernel build. By somewhat-generic I mean we have named
>>> features that often cover more drivers than are stricly necessary for a
>>> given board (usb-net comes to mind). I'd like to see minimal become a
>>> truly minimal image from both the userspace and kernel side point of
>>> view.
>>>
>>> Here's my take on this. From userspace this means uclibc and a staticly
>>> linked busybox. From the kernel this means a static build (no modules)
>>> with nothing more than is required for the board's built-in peripherals
>>> to function, with the possible exception of something like usb-storage.
>>> I'd like to see a < 10M flash size and a <8M memory footprint.
>>
>> From the kernel angle, I have a profile/solution for this
>> lurking in the 2.6.34 kernel, and one that we've been updating
>> for the 2.6.37 kernel.
>>
> Hi Bruce,
>
>> There's a kernel feature called "small", that when overlayed
>> on top of any BSP, converts it to a tuned for small systems
>> BSP. Other than that, we have to hold the line on BSP configurations.
>> Keep them tuned and specific by default and add kernel configurations
>> for optional features when request, not by default.
> We are working on "minimal image". Right now we try to reduce rootfs
> size, but we think there are relationships between kernel configurations
> and rootfs, because rootfs also contains some kernel modules.
> So would you send us a copy of kernel "small" configuration, more detail
> will be appreciated.

Not ignoring this. Just swamped. I'll dig this up ASAP and
send it your way.

Bruce

>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Kai
>>
>> That's the approach we've been taking without our 150 or so
>> BSPs, and it has worked out really well for producing a
>> general/debug BSP + something that is tuned for a truly
>> embedded deployment.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts on this direction?
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> poky mailing list
>> poky at yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>