Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Improve backward compatibility with older Chromebooks
From: Doug Anderson
Date: Tue May 07 2019 - 12:26:39 EST
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:40 PM Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:48 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > When you try to run an upstream kernel on an old ARM-based Chromebook
> > you'll find that console-ramoops doesn't work.
> Ooh, nice! I still get annoyed by old depthcharge firmware. It's
> almost as if we should have gotten an upstream binding approved before
> baking it into firmware...
> > --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
> > +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
> > @@ -703,6 +704,23 @@ static int ramoops_parse_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > #undef parse_size
> > + /*
> > + * Some old Chromebooks relied on the kernel setting the console_size
> > + * and pmsg_size to the record size since that's what the downstream
> > + * kernel did. These same Chromebooks had "ramoops" straight under
> > + * the root node which isn't according to the upstream bindings.
> The last part of the sentence technically isn't true -- the original
> bindings (notably, with no DT maintainer Reviewed-by) didn't specify
> where such a node should be found:
> 35da60941e44 pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings
> so child-of-root used to be a valid location. But anyway, this code is
> just part of a heuristic for "old DT" (where later bindings clarified
> this), so it still seems valid.
I agree that it was unclear in the past, but it is true that being
under the root node is not according to the _current_ upstream
bindings, right? ;-)
> > Let's
> > + * make those old Chromebooks work by detecting this and mimicing the
Kees: if you want me to spin with this typo fix then please let me
know. Otherwise I'll assume it's less work for you to just fix it
yourself when applying.