[PATCH] build: put DT "compatible" value as "board_name" in profiles.json

[Daniel Golle]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 11:32:43PM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 08.07.2020 21:34, Paul Spooren wrote:
> > I think there is a policy for new DT devices to use the compatible string as profile.
> > 
> > Multiple targets contain the following line in the target Makefile, which automatically adds the profile name as supported device:
> > 
> > SUPPORTED_DEVICES := $(subst _,$(comma),$(1))
> > 
> > So ideally for all devices using DT, the profile and compatible string are the same except for '_' replaced by ','.
> > 
> > For instance, the "Linksys WRT3200ACM" has the profile ID `linksys_wrt3200acm` and the automatically added compatible string `linksys,wrt3200acm`. So if that device wanted to search the `mvebu/cortexa9/profiles.json` for available sysupgrades, it takes the first entry from /proc/device-tree/compatible, replaces ',' with '_' find images in profiles.json['profiles']['linksys_wrt3200acm']['images'].
> > 
> > For cases where DT compatible and OpenWrt profile ID/name where different either one was patched[0].
> 
> There are still few exceptions like:
> linksys-ea9500 vs. compatible = "linksys,panamera"
> luxul-xwr-3150 vs. compatible = "luxul,xwr-3150-v1"
> luxul-xbr-4500 vs. compatible = "luxul,xbr-4500-v1"
> 
> This is a bit of problem because:
> 1. I can't change "panamera" to "ea9500" as I was explicitly asked to
>    stick to "panamera" by Imre when upstreaming that DTS

I agree we should respect the artistic preferences of contributors to
some degree.
However, in this case, is there any reason for that somehow secretive
naming scheme beyond personal preference?
Having a consistent and easy to understand codebase also weights a bit
higher than that to me.


Cheers


Daniel