[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=UeEEj0fRb9v1viFpUOWvmrSHM2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:49:34 +0800
From: Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org>
Cc: Stevie Trujillo <stevie.trujillo@...il.com>,
marco.stornelli@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ramoops: is using platform_drivers correct?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org> 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 = 0xED000000, /* SRAM */
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_device goni_ramoops = {
> + .name = "ramoops",
> + .dev = {
> + .platform_data = &goni_ramoops_data,
> + },
> +};
>
> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists