Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 20 Mar 2016 10:17:23 -0600
From:      Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>
To:        "Jukka A. Ukkonen" <jau789@gmail.com>, freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: A little confusing inconsistency
Message-ID:  <1458490643.68920.73.camel@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <56EEA5EC.9080704@gmail.com>
References:  <56EEA5EC.9080704@gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 15:30 +0200, Jukka A. Ukkonen wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Why does sysctl report hw.platform on arm and hw.model on amd64?
> The content is apparently intended to be analogous.
> 
> E.g. on RPI2 ...
> hw.platform: bcm2836
> 
> and then on amd64 ...
> hw.model: AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 4162 EE
> 
> Is this just a little lapsus or intentional for some reason?
> I noticed this when I tried bsdstats on RPI2. It complained
> about missing OID hw.model.

In the armv6 world, driven by FDT data, hw.model should be the value
from the device tree model property.  But that isn't going to lead to
"consistency" either, because then it will be "Wandboard Quad" or
something similar.

-- Ian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1458490643.68920.73.camel>