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

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

On 4/2/25 10:57, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:51:04AM +0100, 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.
> 
> IMHO we can have distinct machines for each model, but
> *NOT* have further machines for each RAM size within a
> model.

Got it. Unfortunately I spent more than my hobbyist time credit
doing this, so if I find the motivation to revisit, it'll be later.

Still, having machine memory size depending on the host config was
a bad design choice IMHO, as we test different setup depending on
the host being used, so not really a "reproducible" setup.