On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:12:35AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:59:29AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:39:05PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > I am curious what is lpc_ich? If this is a dependeny, shouldn't
> > > > express it and it should automatically be pulled in by dracut.
> > >
> > > No. lpc_ich attaches to the hardware and creates platform devices based
> > > on what intel chipset is found. So if the intel chipset has a iTCO
> > > watchdog, then that device is virtually created on the platform bus, the
> > > bus probe routine discovers it and sends a message to udev to load that
> > > module.
> > >
> > > Not quite an explicit dependency. And from the iTCO perspective, I think
> > > it can load on older intel chipsets without an lcp_ich driver. So again,
> > > not a dependency you can really rely on.
> > So who is supposed to pull in lpc_ich? Does dracut by default not inclue
> > lpc_ich driver if need be?
> Why does dracut need to pull in lpc_ich, it normally isn't needed for
> booting. When the disk is mounted, udev re-does the probing I think and
> picks up the new device event.
> Kdump is special here.
I think dracut should enable watchdog in general. Reason being that
if BIOS has enabled the watchdog then you probably want the watchdog
driver to load early and user space should start kicking watchdog.
Think of dropping to shell for dracut debugging. I guess we wouldn't
want to be pulled down by watchdog because we did not mount root fast
I look at patches like that as 'as-needed'. If Harold isn't seeing to
many bugzillas whining about this, then I doubt he is motivated to fix a
I can't argue about keeping the initramfs small (it is too bloated
Well, that's a separate discussion I guess as harald does not seem
to be convinced yet about watchdog in dracut.
Well, kdump gets to lead here. If it becomes a problem Harold knows what
code to copy-n-paste. ;-p