[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct?
    On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Américo Wang <> wrote:
    > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Kyungmin Park <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Américo Wang <> 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?

    It's possible. I just make it possible to use the platform driver. you
    can specify the original method.

    Thank you,
    Kyungmin Park
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-24 16:19    [W:0.024 / U:2.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site