[PATCH v24 9/9] Documentation: dt: chosen properties for arm64 kdump

Mark Rutland mark.rutland at arm.com
Tue Sep 27 16:39:15 PDT 2016


Hi Rob,

Reviving an old thread -- "rock" and "hard place" come to mind.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:26:41AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 10:57:47AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > From: James Morse <james.morse at arm.com>

> > +linux,usable-memory-range
> > +-------------------------
> > +
> > +This property (currently used only on arm64) holds the memory range,
> > +the base address and the size, which can be used as system ram on
> > +the *current* kernel. Note that, if this property is present, any memory
> > +regions under "memory" nodes in DT blob or ones marked as "conventional
> > +memory" in EFI memory map should be ignored.
> > +e.g.
> > +
> > +/ {
> > +	chosen {
> > +		linux,usable-memory-range = <0x9 0xf0000000 0x0 0x10000000>;
> > +	};
> > +};
> 
> I've read the discussion on this. I think you should use the existing 
> linux,usable-memory property in the memory nodes. If UEFI systems don't 
> have memory nodes, then you can find an UEFI way to describe this. DT is 
> not the dumping ground for what doesn't fit in UEFI. How do x86 systems 
> work?

Having looked at the proposals, I'm personally much keener on the approach
above (modulo naming and wording) than trying to bolt memory nodes onto a UEFI
system, or using reserved-memory to describe the inverse of the allowable
range.

I completely agree that we want one solution for DT-only and DT+UEFI.

While those approaches reuse existing infrastructure, they end up creating more
work, and I believe that they create more scope for painful problems. As kdump
is already a constrained case, I think that it's reasonable to have a
linux-specific property as above.

I also think we need to figure out how we expect this to work for the
kexec_file_load case, as that has a criticial impact on the above (e.g. what's
preferable out of cmdline options vs dt properties).

Can we try to sync at connect to discuss this?

Thanks,
Mark.



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list