lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 24 May 2011 22:12:09 +0800
SubjectRe: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct?
FromAmérico Wang <>
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Huh? Is this for x86 too? Why so unfriendly for end-users?
> I don't know which address is acceptable for x86, in case of ARM, each
> SoCs has different SRAM address. so it's not good to define for all
> SoCs and ARM.
>>
>> I think we need some kernel parameter like 'crashkernel=' (or memmap=)
>> to reserve memory for ramoops, right?
>
> The first implementation is just module parameters.
> ramoops.address=0x??????? ramoops.size=0x????. So I patched it as
> using platform devices.
> and the reason use the platform is it's dependent on each SoCs and board usage.
>

But the result is that this makes end-users harder to use it.

Using platform API still relies on a hard-code address, at least in
your example,
so, why not leave it as a module parameter to let user to find the
correct address?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-24 16:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2010