From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: Device tree bindings for linux ramoops use Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:09:08 -0700 Message-ID: <20120106220908.GJ7457@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Marco Stornelli , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:39:50PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > I'm considering how to best describe the data that ramoops needs in > the device tree. > > The idea is really about describing a memory area that is (likely to > be) nonvolatile across reboots. Said area is not to be included in the > regular memory map of the system (i.e. not covered by /memory). > > I have a few options on where to do it. It's not really a hardware > device per se, so it's a gray area for the device tree alltogether. > > How about something like? > > compatible = "linux,ramoops" > linux,ramoops-start = > linux,ramoops-size = ... I'm not a fan of using separate start & size properties. I'd rather see a 'reg' type property like "linux,ramoops-mem = ;", but doing it in separate properties does may early boot code easier to write. I assume that is why the initrd start and size values are passed separately. I can probably be convinced either way though. g.