On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:57:28PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>>BTW, IEEE1275 seems to disagree: > >> > >>No it doesn't. > > > >"...in conventional usage the string begins with the name of the > >device's > >manufacturer". > > You cut that sentence short here, it continues: "as with the name > property."
You ignored the next sentence, which addressed exactly that point. > >Even if you want to quibble about the manner in which the > >manufacturer is specified, that's quite different from leaving it out. > > The text of the standard says that often people start the model > property contents with an "XYZ,". It doesn't say that is required > (though it hints it might be a good idea to do so). It doesn't say > it is okay to just put some arbitrary text there. It says exactly that. They used so many words like "generally", "arbitrary", "no standard interpretation", "conventional usage", "might", "for instance", "manufacturer-dependent", etc. that it's fairly clear that they're merely providing hints as to how the property might be used. > >>That would be "0ABCDEF,Adder MPC875" or "VWXYZ,Adder MPC875" -- > >>not "some random string without a comma Adder MPC875". > > > >"the text string is arbitrary" and "conventional usage". > > It doesn't say that. It says _the format_ is arbitrary, it is > quite specific about the contents: model name and number. "A manufacturer-dependent string that *generally* specifies the model name and number". Besides, that's what I did specify, plus the manufacturer. > >That "random string" is more useful for the intended purpose than the > >first half of a MAC address. > > What, an OUI isn't useful for uniquely identifying a manufacturer? > That's news to me. Not for human consumption. > >>i.e., it is machine readable. > > > >No, it *can* be machine usable in certain circumstances. I'm 100% sure > >that there is no code out there that cares what's in the model field of > >this board's device tree, > > Why would that matter? It matters because machine consumption is obviously not how this particular model property is being used. > >other than to pass it to /proc/cpuinfo (i.e. > >human consumption). > > It's not my fault that /proc/cpuinfo uses strings that are meant for > machine consumption by directly showing them to the user, without some > level of massaging by the platform code first. It definitely is no > argument for doing bad things in your device tree now, instead of > fixing the kernel code. I am not going to add some completely useless layer of indirection because it suits your odd interpretation of the standard. The /proc/cpuinfo output of the model property is useful. Descriptive model properties are useful. Deal with it. > Anyway, I've said enough about this, I think I've made my point -- > and this is very minor stuff after all. Whatever, you brought it up. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
