Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933811AbcLIQDg (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:03:36 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:53322 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933785AbcLIQDd (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:03:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <195d492b-c674-e096-4f84-d37ca5448db2@arm.com> References: <1479396775-32033-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20161118144651.275xz4gu6jaefhp7@rob-hp-laptop> <582F5DC0.4080804@gmail.com> <5834921F.2020809@gmail.com> <195d492b-c674-e096-4f84-d37ca5448db2@arm.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:03:03 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: add support to get machine model name To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Frank Rowand , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1845 Lines: 56 On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 22/11/16 21:35, Rob Herring wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Frank Rowand >> 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