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

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

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.