[thread necromancy, if you don't have the thread locally, it's here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1426261/]
We still need to solve this, and John pinged me about it today. Where does this stand? -Kees On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Anton Vorontsov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Kees Cook Chrome OS & Brillo Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
