> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:14:48PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >> Device vendors often assign IDs to their devices to allow comparing > >> firmware image with device model. This is required to prevent users > >> from flashing incompatible image and soft-bricking device. > >> Add device_id property to DTs to allow user space (and optionally > >> bootloader) verifying firmware images. > > > > This sounds like exactly what the "model" property is meant to be (per > > ePAPR) -- a string that specifices the manufacturer's model number of > > the device, ideally in "manufacturer,model" format. > > What if manufacturer decided to use some totally unfriendly ID for > their low-level (firmware upgrade) model identification? I can't > really see us using > model = "U12H245T00_NETGEAR" > which would mean nothing compared to the current friendly: > model = "Netgear R6250 V1 (BCM4708)" If it uniquely identifies the model, it's fit to be a model string. If being "friendly" means that we lose that, then the property is useless anyway. Note that both examples above deviate from the recommended format, and something like: "netgear,U12H245T00" would better align with the recommendation. Mark. -- 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
