Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1422366 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-15 00:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-21 22:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
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.
Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 00:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2016-06-15 06:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-06-21 22:50 +0200
| From | Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 00:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings |
| Message-ID | <rK4xo-23y-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:50:58PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a "v4" of Greg Hackmann's DT bindings for ramoops. This is > what I'm going to land in the pstore tree unless there are strong and > convincing arguments against it. :) > > I made a number of changes based people's feedback, and I want to get > it unblocked. This patch is already carried by Android, and it doesn't > need to be out of tree. > > To respond to Arnd's comment: I like this as the ramoops node, not the > pstore node, since it describes the ramoops backend, not the pstore > subsystem, which has different controls, and can only have one backend > at a time. So it doesn't make sense to me to have this have a redundant > extra pstore node, since the very presence of ramoops implies pstore. Either I don't follow or you don't get Arnd's comment... IIRC, his suggestion which I agree with was to remove the memory-region phandle and just move all the properties into the reserved memory node directly. This simplifies things such that we are just describing properties of a chunk of memory rather than a Linux specific node for virtual driver. Rob
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-15 06:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rKaW5-6gR-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1422366 |
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:50:58PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> This is a "v4" of Greg Hackmann's DT bindings for ramoops. This is >> what I'm going to land in the pstore tree unless there are strong and >> convincing arguments against it. :) >> >> I made a number of changes based people's feedback, and I want to get >> it unblocked. This patch is already carried by Android, and it doesn't >> need to be out of tree. >> >> To respond to Arnd's comment: I like this as the ramoops node, not the >> pstore node, since it describes the ramoops backend, not the pstore >> subsystem, which has different controls, and can only have one backend >> at a time. So it doesn't make sense to me to have this have a redundant >> extra pstore node, since the very presence of ramoops implies pstore. > > Either I don't follow or you don't get Arnd's comment... > > IIRC, his suggestion which I agree with was to remove the memory-region > phandle and just move all the properties into the reserved memory node > directly. This simplifies things such that we are just describing > properties of a chunk of memory rather than a Linux specific node for > virtual driver. Ah! Okay, I'm a DT newbie, so I think I misunderstood Arnd. :) If it's easy, can you create a patch for that against the v4 I sent of Greg's patch? I'm not sure how to do what you're suggesting. :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS & Brillo Security
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 22:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rMAMq-2gO-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1422590 |
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:40:47PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:50:58PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> This is a "v4" of Greg Hackmann's DT bindings for ramoops. This is
> >> what I'm going to land in the pstore tree unless there are strong and
> >> convincing arguments against it. :)
> >>
> >> I made a number of changes based people's feedback, and I want to get
> >> it unblocked. This patch is already carried by Android, and it doesn't
> >> need to be out of tree.
> >>
> >> To respond to Arnd's comment: I like this as the ramoops node, not the
> >> pstore node, since it describes the ramoops backend, not the pstore
> >> subsystem, which has different controls, and can only have one backend
> >> at a time. So it doesn't make sense to me to have this have a redundant
> >> extra pstore node, since the very presence of ramoops implies pstore.
> >
> > Either I don't follow or you don't get Arnd's comment...
> >
> > IIRC, his suggestion which I agree with was to remove the memory-region
> > phandle and just move all the properties into the reserved memory node
> > directly. This simplifies things such that we are just describing
> > properties of a chunk of memory rather than a Linux specific node for
> > virtual driver.
>
> Ah! Okay, I'm a DT newbie, so I think I misunderstood Arnd. :) If it's
> easy, can you create a patch for that against the v4 I sent of Greg's
> patch? I'm not sure how to do what you're suggesting. :)
While I want to see this merged, I'm not going to get to anything soon.
So here's a DT example of what I mean. This will in addition need an
of_platform_populate call on the /reserved-memory node to get the
platform device created.
{/
reserved-memory {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
ranges;
/* global autoconfigured region for contiguous allocations */
linux,cma {
compatible = "shared-dma-pool";
reusable;
size = <0x4000000>;
alignment = <0x2000>;
linux,cma-default;
};
ramoops@78000000 {
compatible = "ramoops";
reg = <0x78000000 0x8000>;
record-size = <0x4000>;
console-size = <0x4000>
};
};
};
Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web