Re: [PATCH v4 08/21] dt-bindings: reserved-memory: Add qcom,ramoops binding

[Mukesh Ojha]

On 7/3/2023 12:50 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 08:22, Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 7/2/2023 1:42 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > The big difference is if firmware is not deciding where this log
> > > > > lives, then it doesn't need to be in DT. How does anything except the
> > > > > kernel that allocates the log find the logs?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are correct, firmware is not deciding where the logs lives
> > > > instead here, Kernel has reserved the region where the ramoops region
> > > > lives and later with the minidump registration where, physical
> > > > address/size/virtual address(for parsing) are passed and that is how
> > > > firmware is able to know and dump those region before triggering system
> > > > reset.
> > >
> > > Your explanation does not justify storing all this in DT. Kernel can
> > > allocate any memory it wishes, store there logs and pass the address to
> > > the firmware. That's it, no need for DT.
> >
> > If you go through the driver, you will know that what it does, is
>
> We talk about bindings and I should not be forced to look at the
> driver to be able to understand them. Bindings should stand on their
> own.

Why can't ramoops binding have one more feature where it can add a flag 
*dynamic* to indicate the regions are dynamic and it is for platforms
where there is another entity 'minidump' who is interested in these
regions.

> > just create platform device for actual ramoops driver to probe and to
>
> Not really justification for Devicetree anyway. Whatever your driver
> is doing, is driver's business, not bindings.
>
> > provide this it needs exact set of parameters of input what original
> > ramoops DT provides, we need to keep it in DT as maintaining this in
> > driver will not scale well with different size/parameter size
> > requirement for different targets.
>
> Really? Why? I don't see a problem in scaling. At all.

I had attempted it here,

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1683133352-10046-10-git-send-email-quic_mojha@xxxxxxxxxxx/

but got comments related to hard coding and some in favor of having
the same set of properties what ramoops has/provides

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e25723bf-be85-b458-a84c-1a45392683bb@xxxxxxxxx/

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202305161347.80204C1A0E@keescook/
> > > > A part of this registration code you can find in 11/21
> > > >
> > > > > I'm pretty sure I already said all this before.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you said this before but that's the reason i came up with vendor
> > > > ramoops instead of changing traditional ramoops binding.
> > >
> > > That's unexpected conclusion. Adding more bindings is not the answer to
> > > comment that it should not be in the DTS in the first place.
> >
> > Please suggest, what is the other way being above text as requirement..
>
> I do not see any requirement for us there. Forcing me to figure out
> how to add non-hardware property to DT is not the way to convince
> reviewers. But if you insist - we have ABI for this, called sysfs. If
> it is debugging feature, then debugfs.

ramoops already support module params and a way to pass these parameters
from bootargs but it also need to know the hard-codes addresses, so, 
doing something in sysfs will be again duplication with ramoops driver..

If this can be accommodated under ramoops, this will be very small 
change, like this

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230622005213.458236-1-isaacmanjarres@xxxxxxxxxx/

-- Mukesh
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof