On 4/2/25 10:57, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:51:04AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 4/2/25 10:22, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 00:23, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org> wrote:
All previous raspi machines can be created using the generic machine. Deprecate the old names to maintain a single one. Update the tests.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst index 4a3c302962a..c9a11a52f78 100644 --- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst +++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst @@ -257,6 +257,19 @@ Big-Endian variants of MicroBlaze ``petalogix-ml605`` and ``xlnx-zynqmp-pmu`` ma Both ``petalogix-ml605`` and ``xlnx-zynqmp-pmu`` were added for little endian CPUs. Big endian support is not tested.
+ARM ``raspi0``, ``raspi1ap``, ``raspi2b``, ``raspi3ap``, ``raspi3b`` and ``raspi4b`` machines (since 10.0) +'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' + +The Raspberry Pi machines have been unified under the generic ``raspi`` machine, +which takes the model as argument. + + - `raspi0`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=Zero`` + - `raspi1ap`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=1A+`` + - `raspi2b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=2B`` + - `raspi3ap`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=3A+`` + - `raspi3b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=3B`` + - `raspi4b`` is now an alias for ``raspi,model=4B``
This is not how we typically handle "we have a bunch of different devboards in one family". What's wrong with the existing set of machine names?
Zoltan and you don't want to add more machine names, then you don't want a generic machine. This is very confusing.
IMHO we can have distinct machines for each model, but *NOT* have further machines for each RAM size within a model.
Got it. Unfortunately I spent more than my hobbyist time credit doing this, so if I find the motivation to revisit, it'll be later. Still, having machine memory size depending on the host config was a bad design choice IMHO, as we test different setup depending on the host being used, so not really a "reproducible" setup.