Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2011 13:49:34 +0800 | Subject | Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct? | From | Américo Wang <> |
| |
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> You have to define the ramoops platform data at your board file and >> pass it to the platform device init. >> As these address is different for each SoCs. e.g., x86, and Samsung >> ARM SoCs and so on. >> >> I think maybe you use the x86 so define the default x86 ram address >> for ramoops and pass it to platform structures.
Why not document this?
>> >> At office, I will send the sample usage. > > +static struct ramoops_platform_data goni_ramoops_data = { > + .mem_size = SZ_16K, > + .mem_address = 0xED000000, /* SRAM */ > +}; > + > +static struct platform_device goni_ramoops = { > + .name = "ramoops", > + .dev = { > + .platform_data = &goni_ramoops_data, > + }, > +}; > > and register the goni_rammoops. then you can find a rammops. >
Huh? Is this for x86 too? Why so unfriendly for end-users?
I think we need some kernel parameter like 'crashkernel=' (or memmap=) to reserve memory for ramoops, right?
Thanks. -- 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/
| |