[v5,1/2] dt-bindings: ramoops: Add support to get the region dynamically
Commit Message
The reserved memory region for ramoops is assumed to be at a
fixed and known location when read from the devicetree. This
is not desirable in an environment where it is preferred the
region to be dynamically allocated at runtime, as opposed to
being fixed at compile time.
So, update the ramoops binding by using some reserve memory
property to allocate the ramoops region dynamically.
Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com>
---
Changes in v5:
- Updated the commit description.
- Removed example from yaml file.
Changes in v4:
- Addressed comment made by Krzysztof on ramoops node name.
Changes in v3:
- Fixed yaml error and updated commit text as per comment.
Change in v2:
- Added this patch as per changes going to be done in patch 3/3
.../devicetree/bindings/reserved-memory/ramoops.yaml | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Comments
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 02:58:00PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> The reserved memory region for ramoops is assumed to be at a
> fixed and known location when read from the devicetree. This
> is not desirable in an environment where it is preferred the
> region to be dynamically allocated at runtime, as opposed to
> being fixed at compile time.
>
> So, update the ramoops binding by using some reserve memory
> property to allocate the ramoops region dynamically.
Sorry, but I still don't think this belongs in DT as I commented on v4.
On 2/3/2023 5:29 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 02:58:00PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> The reserved memory region for ramoops is assumed to be at a
>> fixed and known location when read from the devicetree. This
>> is not desirable in an environment where it is preferred the
>> region to be dynamically allocated at runtime, as opposed to
>> being fixed at compile time.
>>
>> So, update the ramoops binding by using some reserve memory
>> property to allocate the ramoops region dynamically.
>
> Sorry, but I still don't think this belongs in DT as I commented on v4
Do you mean, we should not even document this here ? or are you against
the size property mentioned in this patch.
-Mukesh
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 2:20 AM Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/3/2023 5:29 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 02:58:00PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> >> The reserved memory region for ramoops is assumed to be at a
> >> fixed and known location when read from the devicetree. This
> >> is not desirable in an environment where it is preferred the
> >> region to be dynamically allocated at runtime, as opposed to
> >> being fixed at compile time.
> >>
> >> So, update the ramoops binding by using some reserve memory
> >> property to allocate the ramoops region dynamically.
> >
> > Sorry, but I still don't think this belongs in DT as I commented on v4
> Do you mean, we should not even document this here ? or are you against
> the size property mentioned in this patch.
I don't think dynamic ramoops location should be defined in DT.
Rob
@@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ description: |
ramoops provides persistent RAM storage for oops and panics, so they can be
recovered after a reboot. This is a child-node of "/reserved-memory", and
is named "ramoops" after the backend, rather than "pstore" which is the
- subsystem.
+ subsystem. This region can be reserved both statically or dynamically by
+ using appropriate property in device tree.
Parts of this storage may be set aside for other persistent log buffers, such
as kernel log messages, or for optional ECC error-correction data. The total
@@ -112,7 +113,13 @@ unevaluatedProperties: false
required:
- compatible
- - reg
+
+oneOf:
+ - required:
+ - reg
+
+ - required:
+ - size
anyOf:
- required: [record-size]