Hi Sudeep, On 11/18/16 12:22, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 11/18/16 02:41, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 17/11/16 21:00, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 11/17/16 07:32, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>> Currently platforms/drivers needing to get the machine model name are >>>> replicating the same snippet of code. In some case, the OF reference >>>> counting is either missing or incorrect. >>>> >>>> This patch adds support to read the machine model name either using >>>> the "model" or the "compatible" property in the device tree root node >>>> to the core OF/DT code. >>>> >>>> This can be used to remove all the duplicate code snippets doing exactly >>>> same thing later. >>> >>> I find five instances of reading only property "model": >>> >>> arch/arm/mach-imx/cpu.c >>> arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mxs.c >>> arch/c6x/kernel/setup.c >>> arch/mips/cavium-octeon/setup.c >>> arch/sh/boards/of-generic.c >>> >> >> Ah sorry you were not Cc-ed in 2/2, but that shows all the instances >> that this will be used for. > > I have not seen 2/2. I do not see it on the devicetree list or on lkml. Can you please re-send patch 2/2? -Frank > > I did see a list of drivers in the RFC patch that you sent several hours > before this patch. > > In that patch you replaced reading the model name from the _flat_ device > tree with the new function in at least one location. That is not > correct. > > >> >>> I find one instance of reading property "model", then if >>> that does not exist, property "compatible": >>> >>> arch/mips/generic/proc.c >>> >> >> Correct as you can check in patch 2/2 >> >>> The proposed patch matches the code used in one place, and thus >>> current usage does not match the patch description. >>> >> >> Yes, but does it matter ? compatibles are somewhat informative about the >> model IMO. > > Yes it does matter. That is just sloppy and makes devicetree yet harder > to understand. It hurts clarity. The new function name says get "model", > not get "model" or "first element of the compatible list". > > And using the _first_ element only of the compatible list to determine > model is not a good paradigm. It is yet another hidden, special case, > undocumented trap to lure in the unwary. > > It is extremely unlikely that the change actually changes behavior for an > existing device tree because there is probably no dts that does not > contain the model property but does contain the proper magic value in > the compatible property. But did you actually check for that? > >> >>> Is my search bad? Are you planning to add additional instances >>> of reading "model" then "compatible"? >>> >> >> No, just replacing the existing ones as in patch 2/2 >> > > You also ignored Arnd's comment in reply to your RFC patch. > > -Frank > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
