Re: [PATCH 1/2] of: base: add support to get machine model name

[Sudeep Holla]

On 22/11/16 18:44, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Rob,

[...]

> This patch adds a function that leads to conflating the "model"
> property and the "compatible" property. This leads to opaque,
> confusing and unclear code where ever it is used.   I think it is
> not good for the device tree framework to contribute to writing
> unclear code.

I agree, the main intention of this patch initially was to have a non
flat_* version of of_flat_dt_get_machine_name

> Further, only two of the proposed users of this new function appear
> to be proper usage.  I do not think that the small amount of reduced
> lines of code is a good trade off for the reduced code clarity and
> for the potential for future mis-use of this function.

OK, most of the place I found it used for logging/informational purpose
and hence I thought it could replace in places where even compatible is
used. If that's wrong or leads to misuse of this API, then fine we
should not have one.

--
Regards,
Sudeep