On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 22/11/16 21:35, Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: > > > [...] > >>> >>> This patch adds a function that leads to conflating the "model" property >>> and the "compatible" property. This leads to opaque, confusing and >>> unclear >>> code where ever it is used. I think it is not good for the device tree >>> framework to contribute to writing unclear code. >>> >>> Further, only two of the proposed users of this new function appear to >>> be proper usage. I do not think that the small amount of reduced lines >>> of code is a good trade off for the reduced code clarity and for the >>> potential for future mis-use of this function. >>> >>> Can I convince you to revert this patch? >> >> >> Yes, I will revert. I looked at this again and the users. They are all informational, so I'm not worried if a compatible string could be returned with this change. The function returns the best name for the machine and having consistency is a good thing. I was considering not reverting (as I'd not yet gotten around to it), but I'm still going to revert for the naming. >> >>> If not, will you accept a patch to change the function name to more >>> clearly indicate what it does? (One possible name would be >>> of_model_or_1st_compatible().) >> >> >> I took it as there's already the FDT equivalent function. > > > Yes it was mainly for non of_flat_* replacement for > of_flat_dt_get_machine_name I would suggest just of_get_machine_name(). You might also add a fallback to return "unknown", and drop some of the custom strings. I don't think anyone should care about the actual string. However, it's an error to have a DT with no model or top level compatible, so maybe a WARN. Rob -- 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
