[PATCH] ARM: /proc/cpuinfo: Use DT machine name when possible
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: 2014-09-05 13:59:11
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 02:52:05PM +0100, Pali Roh?r wrote:
On Friday 05 September 2014 15:45:42 Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:38:40PM +0100, Pali Roh?r wrote:quoted
On Wednesday 18 June 2014 18:54:24 Pali Roh?r wrote:quoted
Machine name from board description is some generic name on DT kernel. DT provides machine name property which is specific for board, so use it instead generic one when possible. Signed-off-by: Pali Roh?r <redacted> --- arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.cb/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c index 8a16ee5..fbc7b4f 100644--- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c@@ -875,10 +875,13 @@ void __init setup_arch(char**cmdline_p) setup_processor(); mdesc = setup_machine_fdt(__atags_pointer); - if (!mdesc) + if (mdesc) + machine_name = of_flat_dt_get_machine_name(); + else mdesc = setup_machine_tags(__atags_pointer, __machine_arch_type); machine_desc = mdesc; - machine_name = mdesc->name; + if (!machine_name) + machine_name = mdesc->name; if (mdesc->reboot_mode != REBOOT_HARD) reboot_mode = mdesc->reboot_mode;So, do you really want to break userspace which reading file /proc/cpuinfo (after migration from boardcode --> DT)?You have no guarantee model name in the DT == the name in a board file anyhow, and trying to force that is wrong. So further to Russell's reply, I must NAK this from a DT perspective. Realistically your userspace is already broken if relying on such things. You built something that only ever worked for a particular arbitrary string. So it was already broken for every other board, and there was never any guarantee that new boards where your userspace could have worked would share the same name. You're trying to fix the wrong side of the equation. Mark.So what is your suggestion for identifing board (name/type) which will work with any kernel (and will not be broken again by kernel later)?
Without knowing your use case I have no idea if that's even a sane thing to do. Mark.