Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2011 22:12:09 +0800 | | Subject | Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct? | | From | Américo 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/
|  |