# Some questions about building custom kernel



## hruodr (Apr 1, 2014)

Dear Sirs!

`kldstat` tells me that ums.ko was loaded, but this is not mentioned in loader.conf. I suppose some daemon loaded it. Is there a problem compiling the kernel with it?

In ums(5) I read:


```
device ums
device uhci
device ohci
device usb
```

In dmesg does not appear uhci. May I omit device uhci in the configuration file?

dmesg mentions the HD as ada0. In ada(4) I read:


```
device ada
```

But there is no such module loaded. Why? Should I include 
"device ada" in the configuration file?

Thanks
Rodrigo


----------



## ondra_knezour (Apr 1, 2014)

Module may be either loaded as dependency or built in statically to the kernel. You can list both loaded and built-in modules by the `kldstat -v` command.


----------



## hruodr (Apr 1, 2014)

ondra_knezour said:
			
		

> Module may be either loaded as dependency or built in statically to the kernel. You can list both loaded and built-in modules by the `kldstat -v` command.



Well, my posting supposed what you say, then I can suppose, that I did not express myself well.

I did not find "`device ada`" in /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC, and `kldstat` do not mention the loading of such a module. That is why I asked.

I will compile the kernel with "`device ums`" and without `device uhci`, althoug ums(4) tells it is necessary.


----------



## SirDice (Apr 2, 2014)

hruodr said:
			
		

> I did not find "`device ada`" in /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/GENERIC, and `kldstat` do not mention the loading of such a module. That is why I asked.


It's created by ata(4).


----------



## hruodr (Apr 2, 2014)

Thanks, SirDice!

Could I then substitute "`device ata`" with "`device ada`"?   §e 

I compiled "`device ums`", without  "`device uhci`" and it works.

Well, building the kernel does not take so much time as building world and compiling ports.

Yesterday took the compiling of X again hours. I compiled xorg-minimal, it took everything as dependencies, inluding perl, two versions of python, m4, bash and llvm (that alone talkes a lot of time). And at the end, xterm was not there, so that I decided to compile xorg port.

This fat X is not what I expected. The X server should run on small X-terminals. Today, I think, one calls such meager programs "embeded systems".

Making install of opera port was again a boaring opera.

Repeating this process for following stable would be a big distraction from my work.

Rodrigo.


----------



## SirDice (Apr 2, 2014)

hruodr said:
			
		

> Could I then substitute "`device ata`" with "`device ada`"?


No, I don't think that will work. 



> I compiled "`device ums`", without  "`device uhci`" and it works.


You don't need uhci(4) if your machine doesn't have the hardware. It's just a different type of USB controller.



> Well, building the kernel does not take so much time as building world and compiling ports.


It's orders of magnitude smaller, so that's not surprising 



> Yesterday took the compiling of X again hours. I compiled xorg-minimal, it took everything as dependencies, inluding perl, two versions of python, m4, bash and llvm (that alone talkes a lot of time). And at the end, xterm was not there, so that I decided to compile xorg port.


You could simply install x11/xterm. It doesn't need to be part of x11/xorg-minimal. I never install xterm because it's always out of date. I'm happy with x11/rxvt-unicode.



> This fat X is not what I expected. The X server should run on small X-terminals. Today, I think, one calls such meager programs "embeded systems".


That's why x11/xorg-minimal exists. And strictly speaking you don't need everything from that either. You don't have to use the "meta-ports" they just make life a little easier.



> Making install of opera port was again a boaring opera.


Yes, why would you expect it to be different?


----------

