On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 08:22, Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/2/2023 1:42 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> The big difference is if firmware is not deciding where this log > >>> lives, then it doesn't need to be in DT. How does anything except the > >>> kernel that allocates the log find the logs? > >> > >> Yes, you are correct, firmware is not deciding where the logs lives > >> instead here, Kernel has reserved the region where the ramoops region > >> lives and later with the minidump registration where, physical > >> address/size/virtual address(for parsing) are passed and that is how > >> firmware is able to know and dump those region before triggering system > >> reset. > > > > Your explanation does not justify storing all this in DT. Kernel can > > allocate any memory it wishes, store there logs and pass the address to > > the firmware. That's it, no need for DT. > > If you go through the driver, you will know that what it does, is We talk about bindings and I should not be forced to look at the driver to be able to understand them. Bindings should stand on their own. > just create platform device for actual ramoops driver to probe and to Not really justification for Devicetree anyway. Whatever your driver is doing, is driver's business, not bindings. > provide this it needs exact set of parameters of input what original > ramoops DT provides, we need to keep it in DT as maintaining this in > driver will not scale well with different size/parameter size > requirement for different targets. Really? Why? I don't see a problem in scaling. At all. > > > > >> > >> A part of this registration code you can find in 11/21 > >> > >>> I'm pretty sure I already said all this before. > >> > >> Yes, you said this before but that's the reason i came up with vendor > >> ramoops instead of changing traditional ramoops binding. > > > > That's unexpected conclusion. Adding more bindings is not the answer to > > comment that it should not be in the DTS in the first place. > > Please suggest, what is the other way being above text as requirement.. I do not see any requirement for us there. Forcing me to figure out how to add non-hardware property to DT is not the way to convince reviewers. But if you insist - we have ABI for this, called sysfs. If it is debugging feature, then debugfs. Best regards, Krzysztof
