From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Cc: geoff@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, will.deacon@arm.com,
james.morse@arm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 8/8] Documentation: dt: usable-memory and elfcorehdr nodes for arm64 kexec
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:46:35 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1629887.9vk1SlhCGj@hactar> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160707020025.GY20774@linaro.org>
Am Donnerstag, 07 Juli 2016, 11:00:25 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> 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.
No problem.
> 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.
Ah, I didn't realize there could be dtb and UEFI systems.
> > 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.
My personal opinion is that having a property with a different name would be
less confusing, but it's not a strong opinion.
I would suggest calling it usable-memory-range, but I'm fine with whatever
is decided by the maintainers.
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, geoff@infradead.org, james.morse@arm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 8/8] Documentation: dt: usable-memory and elfcorehdr nodes for arm64 kexec
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:46:35 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1629887.9vk1SlhCGj@hactar> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160707020025.GY20774@linaro.org>
Am Donnerstag, 07 Juli 2016, 11:00:25 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> 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.
No problem.
> 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.
Ah, I didn't realize there could be dtb and UEFI systems.
> > 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.
My personal opinion is that having a property with a different name would be
less confusing, but it's not a strong opinion.
I would suggest calling it usable-memory-range, but I'm fine with whatever
is decided by the maintainers.
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Thiago Jung Bauermann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v21 8/8] Documentation: dt: usable-memory and elfcorehdr nodes for arm64 kexec
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:46:35 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1629887.9vk1SlhCGj@hactar> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160707020025.GY20774@linaro.org>
Am Donnerstag, 07 Juli 2016, 11:00:25 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> 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.
No problem.
> 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.
Ah, I didn't realize there could be dtb and UEFI systems.
> > 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.
My personal opinion is that having a property with a different name would be
less confusing, but it's not a strong opinion.
I would suggest calling it usable-memory-range, but I'm fine with whatever
is decided by the maintainers.
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-07 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-06 7:52 [PATCH v21 0/8] arm64: kdump support AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 1/8] arm64: kdump: reserve memory for crash dump kernel AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 17:00 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 17:00 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-07 0:19 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 0:19 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 18:11 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-06 18:11 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-07 1:17 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 1:17 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 2/8] arm64: limit memory regions based on DT property, usable-memory AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 17:48 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 17:48 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 3/8] arm64: kdump: implement machine_crash_shutdown() AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 17:28 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 17:28 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-07 0:43 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 0:43 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 16:42 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-07 16:42 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 4/8] arm64: kdump: add kdump support AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 17:38 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 17:38 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-07 0:49 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 0:49 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 5/8] arm64: kdump: add VMCOREINFO's for user-space coredump tools AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 6/8] arm64: kdump: enable kdump in the arm64 defconfig AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 7/8] arm64: kdump: update a kernel doc AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 17:44 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 17:44 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-07 0:51 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 0:51 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` [PATCH v21 8/8] Documentation: dt: usable-memory and elfcorehdr nodes for arm64 kexec AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 7:52 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-06 17:46 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 17:46 ` Geoff Levand
2016-07-06 19:29 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-06 19:29 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-06 19:29 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-07 2:00 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 2:00 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 2:00 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2016-07-07 18:46 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann [this message]
2016-07-07 18:46 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2016-07-07 18:46 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1629887.9vk1SlhCGj@hactar \
--to=bauerman@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=geoff@infradead.org \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.