On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
