Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct?

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You have to define the ramoops platform data at your board file and
>> pass it to the platform device init.
>> As these address is different for each SoCs. e.g., x86, and Samsung
>> ARM SoCs and so on.
>>
>> I think maybe you use the x86 so define the default x86 ram address
>> for ramoops and pass it to platform structures.

Why not document this?

>>
>> At office, I will send the sample usage.
>
> +static struct ramoops_platform_data goni_ramoops_data = {
> +    .mem_size        = SZ_16K,
> +    .mem_address      Â= 0xED000000,  /* SRAM */
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_device goni_ramoops = {
> + Â Â Â .name = "ramoops",
> + Â Â Â .dev = {
> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â .platform_data = &goni_ramoops_data,
> + Â Â Â },
> +};
>
> and register the goni_rammoops. then you can find a rammops.
>

Huh? Is this for x86 too? Why so unfriendly for end-users?

I think we need some kernel parameter like 'crashkernel=' (or memmap=)
to reserve memory for ramoops, right?

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/