Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Mark Icelake-Client CPU models deprecated

[Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 00:20 -0400, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:18:56AM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 14:01 -0400, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 04:37:14PM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote:
> > > > Going to obsolete Icelake-Client CPU models in the future.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Hoo <robert.hu@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Change log
> > > > v3:
> > > > Obsolete in v5.2 --> v5.3.
> > > > 
> > > >  target/i386/cpu.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c
> > > > index 9cb82b7..15c1c00 100644
> > > > --- a/target/i386/cpu.c
> > > > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c
> > > > @@ -3467,7 +3467,12 @@ static X86CPUDefinition
> > > > builtin_x86_defs[] =
> > > > {
> > > >          .xlevel = 0x80000008,
> > > >          .model_id = "Intel Core Processor (Icelake)",
> > > >          .versions = (X86CPUVersionDefinition[]) {
> > > > -            { .version = 1 },
> > > > +            {
> > > > +                .version = 1,
> > > > +                .deprecated = true,
> > > > +                .note = "Deprecated. Will be obsoleted in
> > > > v5.3.
> > > > Please use "
> > > > +                        "'Icelake-Server-v1' CPU model",
> > > 
> > > What's the difference between "deprecated" and "obsoleted"?
> > > 
> > 
> > Forgive my non-native understanding on English word:-D
> 
> No problem!  I'm not a native speaker either.  :-)
> 
> > Here is my understanding:
> > 'Deprecate' is to express strong disapproval on the usage; but, can
> > still be used if user insists.
> > 'Obsolete' means not usable anymore.
> > 
> > You can feel free to reword the note words.
> > Perhaps substitute 'removed' for 'obsolete' will be better.
> 
> "Removed" would be clearer, yes.  It's probably better to not
> mention the exact version, and just say it will be removed in
> the future.

Then I would tend to agree with your suggestion of no specific
'deprecation_note' at all; instead, a general warning message "will be
removed in the future" in machine_run_board_init().
> 
> Or maybe just make the message shorter and set deprecation_note
> to "Please use Icelake-Server instead".  The details can be
> documented in docs/system/deprecated.rst.
> 
Prefer documenting detail and model specific deprecation plan in
docs/system/deprecated.rst.