lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct?
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-24 07:51    [W:0.058 / U:0.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site