[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean