Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757890Ab1EYOIA (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 10:08:00 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:45212 "EHLO mail-qy0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757674Ab1EYOH6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 10:07:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=J3Qn6vDCbtfGEruQbdXJo44e/01nZXLvZbJ1RQqFdkCu6bZ32VWLsJv2PuciK/rsqq JvxaDv5KuNdme/xSTazRkUWYBOmFwkHnqLQkV26AaTuntp3pTinQzI4p4SVvt8tCWEfv 9PgI4X6+JpLC9ax5M27xuNWh/VYB4PvTxdTgs= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <201105231527.53805.stevie.trujillo@gmail.com> <4DDBE4D5.9010000@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:07:57 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct? From: Marco Stornelli To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Am=E9rico_Wang?= Cc: Stevie Trujillo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kmpark@infradead.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: 1574 Lines: 44 2011/5/25 Am?rico Wang : > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Marco Stornelli > wrote: >> Il 23/05/2011 15:27, Stevie Trujillo ha scritto: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> ramoops (drivers/char/ramoops.c) is for "all" computers right? When I try >>> to >> >> Yes, or at least was my intention. It's true that this drivers is useful >> when you use an NVRAM, this is typical for the embedded world where the >> platform driver approach is more diffused. Sure at this point the module >> parameters are not useful. In addition the platform data struct doesn't >> define a way to select if to dump only oops. At the end I think a patch it's >> needed here. I have to look at the code to see if it's possible to use the >> platform data OR module parameters. I'll submit a patch. >> > > But we have the following code: > > ? ? ? ?if (reason != KMSG_DUMP_OOPS && > ? ? ? ? ? ?reason != KMSG_DUMP_PANIC && > ? ? ? ? ? ?reason != KMSG_DUMP_KEXEC) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return; > > which is what you meant by saying "only oops" ? I meant a way to set dump_oops parameter via platform data. > > I still don't think that is a correct way to tell people not to use > ramoops, we need to document this rather than prevent using > it in the code. > I really don't understand what you mean here. Marco -- 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/