Hello, John,
On 7/11/2012 2:05 PM, John Rigby wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Cullen wrote:
>>
>>> Running config-check for all configurations ...
>>>
>>> check-config:
>>> /tmp/tmp.nh0bAR6k1r/CONFIGS/armel-config.flavour.linaro-lt-omap: loading
>>> config
>>> check-config:
>>> /home/work/linux-linaro-lt-omap-3.4-3.4.0/debian.linaro/config/enforce:
>>> loading checks
>>> check-config: FAIL: value CONFIG_INIT_PASS_ALL_PARAMS y
>>> check-config: 43/44 checks passed -- exit 1
>>> check-config:
>>> /tmp/tmp.nh0bAR6k1r/CONFIGS/armhf-config.flavour.linaro-lt-omap: loading
>>> config
>>> check-config:
>>> /home/work/linux-linaro-lt-omap-3.4-3.4.0/debian.linaro/config/enforce:
>>> loading checks
>>> check-config: FAIL: value CONFIG_INIT_PASS_ALL_PARAMS y
>>> check-config: 43/44 checks passed -- exit 1
>>>
>>> *** ERROR: 2 config-check failures detected
>>
> Yes this is expected because that config option is introduced by a
> ubuntu patch that is not in this tree. I changed some of the scripts
> to make this error non-fatal but the output gives no indication of
> that. I will change that so it is clear that this is a warning or I
> will make a change to the config checker to only require the option if
> it exists.
My concern here is that this configuration item was introduced in
2010 to fix a problem with starting a getty on OMAP processors:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/586386
Since I am using the Ubuntu image to work around problems with the
Linaro-Ubuntu image, I am concerned that this will break my console
getty.
Can you offer any reassurance, e.g. by pointing out how more modern
kernels solve the problem differently?
--
Thank you,
David Cullen
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
