From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] pstore/ram: add Device Tree bindings Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:59:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20160614215914.GA16454@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1465599059-22665-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1465599059-22665-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kees Cook Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Hackmann , Arnd Bergmann , Markus Pargmann , Olof Johansson , Brian Norris , Anton Vorontsov , Colin Cross , Lee Campbell , Tony Luck , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:50:58PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a "v4" of Greg Hackmann's DT bindings for ramoops. This is > what I'm going to land in the pstore tree unless there are strong and > convincing arguments against it. :) > > I made a number of changes based people's feedback, and I want to get > it unblocked. This patch is already carried by Android, and it doesn't > need to be out of tree. > > To respond to Arnd's comment: I like this as the ramoops node, not the > pstore node, since it describes the ramoops backend, not the pstore > subsystem, which has different controls, and can only have one backend > at a time. So it doesn't make sense to me to have this have a redundant > extra pstore node, since the very presence of ramoops implies pstore. Either I don't follow or you don't get Arnd's comment... IIRC, his suggestion which I agree with was to remove the memory-region phandle and just move all the properties into the reserved memory node directly. This simplifies things such that we are just describing properties of a chunk of memory rather than a Linux specific node for virtual driver. Rob