On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:46:28AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:19:41 PM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote:

quoted

On 6-7-2016 15:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:08:55 AM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

All existing uses of the model property in arch/arm/boot/dts and most of
the ones in arch/powerpc/boot/dts are against the intended usage in
one way or another, but adding different kind of incorrect usage won't
improve that.

The only way I can see the model property being used correctly would
be to have it match the first entry in the compatible property, but
that is completely redundant, so we tend to omit it, except for the
root node in which it is required. For the root node however, the
historic practice that has crept in on ARM is to put something completely
different in there, which is a human-readable description of the
machine rather than something we can use as a unique indentifier.

I'd just consider the "model" property burned, and not use it for anything
that doesn't already use it, just like we handle "device_type": a few
things require it, nothing else should use it.

If that is the agreed approach in devicetree arena I am fine with it. I
have been unaware of this and just looked at the suggestion from Jonas
seeing a solution to the problem at hand.

I don't think it has been discussed or decided before as the question
has not come up, so for now this is my personal view. Maybe one of
the devicetree maintainers can comment on this.

Back from vacation and getting caught up.

I agree with Arnd here. In my view model is the OEM branding on the 
device, compatible is the h/w. If you have different firmware related 
files, that goes beyond OEM branding.

Rob