On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 17:08 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > > So for memory starting at 0 it should be memory at 0 > > There are a fair number of dts files in the kernel tree that don't > specify an address for the memory node. > > If the kernel accepts it without an address, it seems logical that kexec > should as well. As long as kexec doesn't start being stupid when there are several nodes and doesn't pick up the "first one in device-tree order" instead of the one at 0... I've been hit by that sort of bugs before (though not specifically in kexec). > Or maybe the kernel should just implicitly assume an address of zero and > export it as such in /proc/device-tree? I don't want /proc/device-tree to expose something different than what's in the actual device-tree, that would be the source for endless horrors. We already are borderline with the occasional renaming we do in the case of duplicate name+property... Cheers, Ben.
