[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/4] brcmfmac: Add brcm, nvram_file_name dt property

[Rob Herring]

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:
> > On 6-7-2016 15:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:08:55 AM CEST Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> 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