Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932561Ab1EXOQR (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 10:16:17 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:61193 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932466Ab1EXOQO convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 10:16:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=AIlEkj4oWK1hwYfgGZ6kHDPV4MJzC4v9Rx9sHzpv3C8CFEJxauWkfV/tu5XeGMDmLI +bnQyAmydM8Wvn/DK4fy4ZAaVqRHtc/ov/0TPsAPORKdxM1gidBPORzjtuSOBxye9F+R OOXYpG2Ddb8HX2f1tmMHrOK/vlkhlTvI0wi3I= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <201105231527.53805.stevie.trujillo@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:16:13 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6oWSSMzCgy2NzGeEPUd3Ud3NhcI Message-ID: Subject: Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct? From: Kyungmin Park To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= Cc: Stevie Trujillo , marco.stornelli@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1449 Lines: 35 On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Am?rico Wang wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Kyungmin Park wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Am?rico 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 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/