On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:02:33PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > static int ramoops_pstore_open(struct pstore_info *psi)
> > > {
> > > @@ -915,14 +965,18 @@ static void __init ramoops_register_dummy(void)
> > > /*
> > > * Prepare a dummy platform data structure to carry the module
> > > - * parameters. If mem_size isn't set, then there are no module
> > > - * parameters, and we can skip this.
> > > + * parameters. If mem_size isn't set, check for dynamic ramoops
> > > + * size and use if it is set.
> > > */
> > > - if (!mem_size)
> > > + if (!mem_size && !dyn_ramoops_size)
> > > return;
> >
> > If mem_size and dyn_ramoops_size are set, you are taking
> > dyn_ramoops_size precedence here. The comment is a bit confusing, pls
> > review it once.
>
> Ideally, both should not be set and there will always be
> confusion.
>
> Do you think, if we use mem_size a single variable both for earlier
> and dynamic ramoops where based on dyn_ramoops_size=true/on a boolean
> it will take dynamic ramoops path and if not mentioned it will take older
> path.
>
Sounds like a good idea to me. You would need a callback for mem_size
module param handling. Because dyn_ramoops can be passed before mem_size
parameter. Also, we can't make pstore ram as module i.e decoupling
dynamic ramoops from pstore ram module.
Thanks,
Pavan
