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?