On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 15:04 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:11:48PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:55:36PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:13:23PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
[...]
+/ {
- model = "FVP Base";
FVP Base (is as the name implies) a base upon which particular model instances are built. This name should be clarified (e.g. "FVP Base A57x4 A53x4").
That also applies to the filename.
I can update these, though they do seem to come from what you guys are releasing - you might want to follow up on this internally (this applies to almost all of your review comments, sorry). It's probably going to be a bit confusing for users to have the filename change but ho hum :/
I'll try to chase up the issues, thanks for making me aware.
I don't see the name issue as a big problem. This DT has never been part of the kernel tree, so there's no filename compatibility issue to deal with. Existing users of the DT will already have to be modified to get the DTs from a new source.
There should be nothing hanging off the compatible string for the platform yet -- we have no board files or platform blobs in the arm64 port. If the model name is being used as anything other than a handy indicator to users, then that's broken anyway.
I believe Android uses model names to determine the filenames of init scripts to run. That's not a kernel problem, but thought I would point out one 'broken' use that I have first hand experience of, having been tripped up before by ARM's twice yearly lets-rename-everything-again exercise ;-)