On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:33:29AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 04:31:56AM +0000, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > > > +/ {
> > > > + model = "SAMSUNG SSDK-GH7 board based on GH7 SoC";
> > > Is the "based on GH7 SoC" part necessary? Does the "SSDK-GH7" not give
> > > that away?
> > In this case, yes, SSDK-GH7 is enough but I though, in case of different
> > board adding what SoC is used on the board in that is useful. Anyway, OK.
> Looking at ePAPR, the recommended format is "manufacturer,model", and
> the string is intended to identify a particular implementation. It is
> not intended to give details about the implementation that can be
> derived from the name.
> We seem to have ignored the format (and to some degree purpose) of the
> model property so far, but I don't see any reason to fill it with
> unnecessary information.
Might it be worth defining a property explicitly intended to be used as
a display name for human consumption? Half the problem with model is
that we don't have a way to use it for quirking so nobody ever really
looks at it (though I guess we will want that at some point now we're
going for fixed ABI stuff), but not having a place to put a pretty name
does encourage this sort of thing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
