Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] hw/arm/raspi: Deprecate old raspiX machine names

[Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>]

On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:58:39AM +0100, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > On 4/2/25 10:22, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 00:23, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
> > > <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > All previous raspi machines can be created using the
> > > > generic machine. Deprecate the old names to maintain
> > > > a single one. Update the tests.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > > diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
> > > > index 4a3c302962a..c9a11a52f78 100644
> > > > --- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst
> > > > +++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst
> > > > @@ -257,6 +257,19 @@ Big-Endian variants of MicroBlaze
> > > > ``petalogix-ml605`` and ``xlnx-zynqmp-pmu`` ma
> > > >   Both ``petalogix-ml605`` and ``xlnx-zynqmp-pmu`` were added
> > > > for little endian
> > > >   CPUs. Big endian support is not tested.
> > > > 
> > > > +ARM ``raspi0``, ``raspi1ap``, ``raspi2b``, ``raspi3ap``,
> > > > ``raspi3b`` and ``raspi4b`` machines (since 10.0)
> > > > +''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> > > > +
> > > > +The Raspberry Pi machines have been unified under the generic
> > > > ``raspi`` machine,
> > > > +which takes the model as argument.
> > > > +
> > > > +    - `raspi0`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=Zero``
> > > > +    - `raspi1ap`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=1A+``
> > > > +    - `raspi2b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=2B``
> > > > +    - `raspi3ap`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=3A+``
> > > > +    - `raspi3b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=3B``
> > > > +    - `raspi4b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=4B``
> > > 
> > > This is not how we typically handle "we have a bunch
> > > of different devboards in one family". What's wrong with the
> > > existing set of machine names?
> > 
> > Zoltan and you don't want to add more machine names, then you
> > don't want a generic machine. This is very confusing.
> 
> I said either rastpi4b,revision=1.4 or -machine raspi4b -memory 4g would be
> better IMHO. Peter perefers -memory which is also fine with me. I just don't
> think adding more machine names where only RAM size is different would be
> better than using -memory for that as usual.

	I'm the annoying root cause of this as I had filed this:
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/2797#note_2326724893

Which was really a question around providing more memory options, I'm
happy seeing a lot of thought has gone into my simple question/request,
but it's unclear reading this thread where things concluded.

	Is there a chance these are in a branch that one could build
against to get consensus on some of this style vs substance stuff?  I
get it that it's tricky and do generally think that one could restrict
armhf vs arm64 to having 64-bit support in the (hypervisor) OS.

	I was wanting to tweak some disk images before imaging a bunch
of nvme for use and saw using kvm/qemu as a straightforward path to
doing that on my laptop (x86_64) before firing up a bunch of compute
modules etc.

	- Jared
[i'm not subscribed to the qemu-dev list, so I expect mailman will
hold/bounce me]

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.