Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> writes: > On 06/30/2014 06:35 PM, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote: >> PAPR compliant guest calls this in absence of kdump. This finally >> reaches the guest and can be handled according to the policies set by >> higher level tools(like taking dump) for further analysis by tools like >> crash. >> >> Linux kernel calls ibm,os-term when extended property of os-term is set. >> This makes sure that a return to the linux kernel is gauranteed. >> >> CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@au1.ibm.com> >> CC: Anton Blanchard <an...@samba.org> >> CC: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >> CC: Tyrel Datwyler <turtle.in.the.ker...@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Nikunj A Dadhania <nik...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h b/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h >> index bbba51a..4e96381 100644 >> --- a/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h >> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h >> @@ -382,7 +382,6 @@ int spapr_allocate_irq_block(int num, bool lsi, bool >> msi); >> #define RTAS_GET_SENSOR_STATE (RTAS_TOKEN_BASE + 0x1D) >> #define RTAS_IBM_CONFIGURE_CONNECTOR (RTAS_TOKEN_BASE + 0x1E) >> #define RTAS_IBM_OS_TERM (RTAS_TOKEN_BASE + 0x1F) >> -#define RTAS_IBM_EXTENDED_OS_TERM (RTAS_TOKEN_BASE + 0x20) > > > So we never ever going to implement this RTAS call?
Yeah, as its an RTAS property an not a call. > I'd keep the number. Regards Nikunj
