Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1302306 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened Device Tree.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened  Device Tree. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2016-01-06 02:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened  Device Tree. Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2016-01-06 02:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened  Device Tree. Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 02:50 +0100

#1302306 — Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened Device Tree.

[thread necromancy, if you don't have the thread locally, it's here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1426261/]

We still need to solve this, and John pinged me about it today. Where
does this stand?

-Kees


On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Bryan Freed wrote:
> [...]
>> And as a more general question, why should we try not to put
>> configuration in the device tree?  It seems like a great (and
>> portable) place to put this stuff.
>> It certainly seems better to have it there than hardwired in the
>> kernel or tacked onto the kernel command line.
>
> But then we have two in-kernel APIs to pass kernel parameters? So we'll
> have to maintain two ways of passing the options for each driver. That is
> hardly a good solution.
>
> If you would like to see a convenient way to pass kernel/module options
> via the device tree, I would suggest implementing something like this:
>
> chosen {
>         kernel-options {
>                 linux,pstore.record-size = 123;
>                 linux,foo = "bar";
>         };
> };
>
> And then let the kernel translate all these to module_param_*().
>
> I am still not sure about placing the options along with devices layout,
> but if we go this route, then that is also viable:
>
> pstore-node {
>         linux,pstore.record-size = 123;
> };
>
> And translate "linux,*" this to module_param_*().
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Thanks,
> Anton



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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1302308

[fixing devicetree mailing list]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> [thread necromancy, if you don't have the thread locally, it's here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1426261/]
>
> We still need to solve this, and John pinged me about it today. Where
> does this stand?
>
> -Kees
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Bryan Freed wrote:
>> [...]
>>> And as a more general question, why should we try not to put
>>> configuration in the device tree?  It seems like a great (and
>>> portable) place to put this stuff.
>>> It certainly seems better to have it there than hardwired in the
>>> kernel or tacked onto the kernel command line.
>>
>> But then we have two in-kernel APIs to pass kernel parameters? So we'll
>> have to maintain two ways of passing the options for each driver. That is
>> hardly a good solution.
>>
>> If you would like to see a convenient way to pass kernel/module options
>> via the device tree, I would suggest implementing something like this:
>>
>> chosen {
>>         kernel-options {
>>                 linux,pstore.record-size = 123;
>>                 linux,foo = "bar";
>>         };
>> };
>>
>> And then let the kernel translate all these to module_param_*().
>>
>> I am still not sure about placing the options along with devices layout,
>> but if we go this route, then that is also viable:
>>
>> pstore-node {
>>         linux,pstore.record-size = 123;
>> };
>>
>> And translate "linux,*" this to module_param_*().
>>
>> How does that sound?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anton
>
>
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS & Brillo Security



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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1302324

+Greg H

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> [fixing devicetree mailing list]
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> [thread necromancy, if you don't have the thread locally, it's here:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1426261/]
>>
>> We still need to solve this, and John pinged me about it today. Where
>> does this stand?

Wrong thread here as the latest version is "[PATCH v2] pstore-ram: add
Device Tree bindings" recently posted by Greg H (and reviewed by you).
I am mostly happy with it and only had a minor comment remaining. I
was expecting to see a v3.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web