Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] hw/arm/raspi: Deprecate old raspiX machine names

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&gt; 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&gt; > > > > > > > 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.