On 2019-02-22 23:36, Rob Herring wrote: > +boot-architecture list > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 07:52:47PM +0800, liaoweixiong wrote: >> Create DT binding document for blkoops. >> >> Signed-off-by: liaoweixiong <liaoweixiong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..5462915 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ >> +Blkoops oops logger >> +=================== >> + >> +Blkoops provides a block partition for oops, excluding panics now, so they can >> +be recovered after a reboot. >> + >> +Any space of block device will be used for a circular buffer of oops records. >> +These records have a configurable size, with a size of 0 indicating that they >> +should be disabled. >> + >> +At least one of "block-device" and "total_size" must be set. >> + >> +At least one of "dmesg-size" or "pmsg-size" must be set non-zero. >> + >> +Required properties: >> + >> +- compatible: must be "blkoops". >> + >> +Optional properties: >> + >> +- block-device: The block device to use. Most of the time, it is a partition of >> + device. If block-device is NULL, no block device is effective >> + and the data will be lost after rebooting. >> + It accept the following variants: >> + 1) <hex_major><hex_minor> device number in hexadecimal >> + represents itself no leading 0x, for example b302. >> + 2) /dev/<disk_name> represents the device number of disk >> + 3) /dev/<disk_name><decimal> represents the device number of >> + partition - device number of disk plus the partition number >> + 4) /dev/<disk_name>p<decimal> - same as the above, that form is >> + used when disk name of partitioned disk ends on a digit. >> + 5) PARTUUID=00112233-4455-6677-8899-AABBCCDDEEFF representing >> + the unique id of a partition if the partition table provides >> + it. The UUID may be either an EFI/GPT UUID, or refer to an >> + MSDOS partition using the format SSSSSSSS-PP, where SSSSSSSS >> + is a zero-filled hex representation of the 32-bit >> + "NT disk signature", and PP is a zero-filled hex >> + representation of the 1-based partition number. >> + 6) PARTUUID=<UUID>/PARTNROFF=<int> to select a partition in >> + relation to a partition with a known unique id. >> + 7) <major>:<minor> major and minor number of the device >> + separated by a colon. > > No. > > I didn't suggest to go look at PARTUUID to copy it into the binding, but > rather to point out that the kernel can already mount by UUID. > Specifying the UUID in DT is also not what I suggested. My suggestion is > to define a known UUID so that the kernel (and bootloaders, userspace, > the world) can just know the UUID. Just like the EFI system partition. > Now this means you have to get it defined in the UEFI specification > (or maybe EBBR[1]). If you want help with how to do that, the > boot-architecture list is a good place to start. > Thanks for your suggestion. I don't know whether it is a good idea to define a known UUID for pstore/blk in the UEFI specification. This property is only used for pstore/blk to know which block device it can use. It only works on linux. I think more thorough and rigorous consideration is needed. Besides that, mbr partition table has no partition UUID, how can it to be compatible with mbr? > major/minor numbers are a Linux thing, so they don't go in DT. > /dev/* is Linux thing, so it doesn't go in DT. > > You can always define all these parameters as kernel command line > options and avoid DT. That would also make this work on *all* systems, > not just DT based systems. (Though I still believe that the partition > should be discoverable.) > The pstore/blk has already support command line. It now has 3 configuration methods, they are kconfig, DT and module parameters. I will cancel DT support on next version until we discuss a viable approach by this mail and than i will submit other patches to implement DT. Is this ok? > Rob > > [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr > -- liaoweixiong
