From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: bindings: Add DT bindings for ARM's FVP models. Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:33:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20160621213318.GA32655@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1466424796-13769-1-git-send-email-tixy@linaro.org> <20160621132257.GA2263@rob-hp-laptop> <1466516312.2856.27.camel@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1466516312.2856.27.camel@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sudeep Holla List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-21 at 08:22 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > +Required properties (in root node): > > > +- compatible value: > > > + compatible = "arm,,", "arm,"; > > > + where is one of: > > > + - "fvp-base" for the Base FVP > > > + - "fvp-ve" for the VE FVP > > > + and is the part of the model's executable filename with > > the family > > > + name omitted, converted to lower case, and with non-alphanumeric > > characters > > > + replaced with '-'. E.g. the Base FVP that has two AEMv8 CPU > > clusters has an > > > + executable file called FVP_Base_AEMv8A-AEMv8A, so the compatible > > value for > > > > Naming conventions of the exe aren't going to change? > > Almost certainly will at some point, as will the very name Fixed Virtual > Platform, what 'families' ARM produce and their naming, and the > configuration of the 'hardware' compiled into the models. > > These are software models, so can be changed easily at the whim of > marketing, or current perceived requirements from engineers and > managers. So generally, it's a moving target, that doesn't fit nicely > into the needs producing device-trees. Then do we even need to specify something so specific? The kernel probably doesn't even care. Are you going to upstream new strings everytime there's a new one (that's public)? We've had models supported upstream for a long time. What's changed now? Rob