From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:58:29 +0100 Subject: [PATCH RFC] ARM: BCM5301X: Add /device_id property including device ID string In-Reply-To: References: <1427667288-23903-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <20150330103659.GD17971@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20150330105828.GE17971@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:14:48PM +0100, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote: > >> Device vendors often assign IDs to their devices to allow comparing > >> firmware image with device model. This is required to prevent users > >> from flashing incompatible image and soft-bricking device. > >> Add device_id property to DTs to allow user space (and optionally > >> bootloader) verifying firmware images. > > > > This sounds like exactly what the "model" property is meant to be (per > > ePAPR) -- a string that specifices the manufacturer's model number of > > the device, ideally in "manufacturer,model" format. > > What if manufacturer decided to use some totally unfriendly ID for > their low-level (firmware upgrade) model identification? I can't > really see us using > model = "U12H245T00_NETGEAR" > which would mean nothing compared to the current friendly: > model = "Netgear R6250 V1 (BCM4708)" If it uniquely identifies the model, it's fit to be a model string. If being "friendly" means that we lose that, then the property is useless anyway. Note that both examples above deviate from the recommended format, and something like: "netgear,U12H245T00" would better align with the recommendation. Mark.