From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935297AbcKWKdW (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 05:33:22 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48148 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935134AbcKWKcm (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 05:32:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: add support to get machine model name To: Rob Herring References: <1479396775-32033-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20161118144651.275xz4gu6jaefhp7@rob-hp-laptop> <582F5DC0.4080804@gmail.com> <5834921F.2020809@gmail.com> Cc: Frank Rowand , Sudeep Holla , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <195d492b-c674-e096-4f84-d37ca5448db2@arm.com> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:25:57 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > >> 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 -- Regards, Sudeep