On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:19:47AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:06:11PM -0400, Jared D. McNeill wrote:
> >  On 19-Jun-07, at 8:12 PM, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> > > I wonder how we'll do that from a user/installer point: thow in GENERIC, 
> > > and then have sets with different /netbsd.plist files to get _NOACPI, 
> > > _LAPTOP, etc. kernel flavours?
> > 
> >  I would personally like to see us start using GENERIC for installation as 
> >  well, but this should be a separate discussion.
> 
> Agreed, and agreed.  However, on the point about having different sets
> for each plist file: no, just have them all and adjust a symlink (or
> whatever) for which one gets installed by default.
> 
> > > Will we stop having a lot of kernels, and have different .plist files for 
> > > the various flavours in the future?
> > 
> >  If we boot the installer with a GENERIC kernel, we could dump the (now 
> >  known-working) bootprops into the install root. That way you're pretty much 
> >  guaranteed to have a working config, with the exception being the 
> >  GENERIC/GENERIC.MP case. Maybe you get to select between using GENERIC and 
> >  GENERIC.MP for installation or something (or maybe we grow a bit of smarts 
> >  in the bootloader and detect whether we're booting on a UP or MP system, 
> >  selecting the appropriate kernel automatically).
> 
> As I understand it, at least post-vmlocking, there won't be much need
> for different UP/MP kernels anymore (unless you're specifically
> stripping one way down for size).

That's what I'd like to do for x86. The issue there is whether including
ioapic causes problems with interrupt routing on some systems. I don't know
what the state of play is with that.

If the pci fixup stuff can be controlled from the boot prompt, is there a
reason not to ditch the options and make it something always included along
with pci?

Andrew