Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct?

[Kyungmin Park]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Américo 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?

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/