On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 04:29:18PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 06 Juli 2016, 16:52:26 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> > +linux,usable-memory
> > +-------------------
> > +
> > +This property is set on PowerPC and arm64 by kexec-tools during kdump
> > +to tell the crash kernel the base address of its reserved area of memory,
> > and +the size. e.g.
> > +
> > +/ {
> > + chosen {
> > + linux,usable-memory = <0x9 0xf0000000 0x0 0x10000000>;
> > + };
> > +};
>
> Again, this description is wrong for PowerPC. See messages from myself and
> Michael Ellerman:
>
> https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2016-June/016250.html
>
> https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2016-June/016253.html
Oops, I must have missed your previous comments. Apologies.
Yes, I know that, and I used to implement the same functionality before.
It did work for dtb-based systems, but not for UEFI(ACPI)-based systems
because UEFI doesn't export memory regions information via a device tree,
but rather via ACPI table. So "/memory" node won't appear.
So I went back with "mem=" command line approach, and later this "/chosen/"
approach.
> IMHO, it would be simpler if ARM used linux,usable-memory in the same way
> that PowerPC does, for consistency.
Well, this property won't conflict with per-"/memory" ones
if we take it that the former, if present, supersedes the latter.
Sophistic?
What about changing the name to usable-memory-limit?
(I know that you have another one, "memory-limit" though.)
Again, I would like to defer to arm64 maintainers.
Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI
> --
> []'s
> Thiago Jung Bauermann
> IBM Linux Technology Center
>
