From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anton Vorontsov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened Device Tree. Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:24:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20130414142441.GA3619@teo> References: <1347042576-17675-1-git-send-email-bfreed@chromium.org> <20120908052907.GA4724@lizard> <20120917062302.GA768@lizard> <20130407174313.GA7168@lizard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bryan Freed , Arnd Bergmann Cc: Rob Herring , Tony Luck , Kees Cook , Marco Stornelli , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , Stephen Boyd , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , John Stultz , Colin Cross , Olof Johansson List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:54:01PM -0700, Bryan Freed wrote: [...] > And as a more general question, why should we try not to put > configuration in the device tree? It seems like a great (and > portable) place to put this stuff. > It certainly seems better to have it there than hardwired in the > kernel or tacked onto the kernel command line. But then we have two in-kernel APIs to pass kernel parameters? So we'll have to maintain two ways of passing the options for each driver. That is hardly a good solution. If you would like to see a convenient way to pass kernel/module options via the device tree, I would suggest implementing something like this: chosen { kernel-options { linux,pstore.record-size = 123; linux,foo = "bar"; }; }; And then let the kernel translate all these to module_param_*(). I am still not sure about placing the options along with devices layout, but if we go this route, then that is also viable: pstore-node { linux,pstore.record-size = 123; }; And translate "linux,*" this to module_param_*(). How does that sound? Thanks, Anton