Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct?

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM, AmÃrico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> 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?
--
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/