Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:33624 "EHLO mail-pf0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456AbcGRHvV (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:51:21 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y134so35132675pfg.0 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/4] brcmfmac: Add brcm,nvram_file_name dt property To: Rob Herring , Arnd Bergmann References: <1467209074-15634-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <3354017.XSBSmHHtrQ@wuerfel> <3996482.D5xdKXDiGl@wuerfel> <20160717214502.GA11498@rob-hp-laptop> Cc: Jonas Gorski , Hans de Goede , Kalle Valo , Priit Laes , "John W . Linville" , Arend van Spriel , Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , devicetree , linux-sunxi From: Arend Van Spriel Message-ID: <44803976-7e34-991f-5ee0-0a548f6cefc6@broadcom.com> (sfid-20160718_095125_988427_D97AA4F0) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:51:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160717214502.GA11498@rob-hp-laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 17-7-2016 23:45, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:46:28AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:19:41 PM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>> On 6-7-2016 15:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:08:55 AM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> All existing uses of the model property in arch/arm/boot/dts and most of >>>> the ones in arch/powerpc/boot/dts are against the intended usage in >>>> one way or another, but adding different kind of incorrect usage won't >>>> improve that. >>>> >>>> The only way I can see the model property being used correctly would >>>> be to have it match the first entry in the compatible property, but >>>> that is completely redundant, so we tend to omit it, except for the >>>> root node in which it is required. For the root node however, the >>>> historic practice that has crept in on ARM is to put something completely >>>> different in there, which is a human-readable description of the >>>> machine rather than something we can use as a unique indentifier. >>>> >>>> I'd just consider the "model" property burned, and not use it for anything >>>> that doesn't already use it, just like we handle "device_type": a few >>>> things require it, nothing else should use it. >>> >>> If that is the agreed approach in devicetree arena I am fine with it. I >>> have been unaware of this and just looked at the suggestion from Jonas >>> seeing a solution to the problem at hand. >> >> I don't think it has been discussed or decided before as the question >> has not come up, so for now this is my personal view. Maybe one of >> the devicetree maintainers can comment on this. > > Back from vacation and getting caught up. > > I agree with Arnd here. In my view model is the OEM branding on the > device, compatible is the h/w. If you have different firmware related > files, that goes beyond OEM branding. Thanks, Rob We are talking about hardware variants here. So using the model property is off the table. Regards, Arend