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(a)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(a)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.