2

The following Answer which is a link to official Raspberry Pi Documentation site was disallowed "In keeping with our policy regarding informationless(sic) link-only answers, this post has been converted to a comment". https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/a/137333/8697

In this case I feel the "policy" is WRONG. If we can't trust Raspberry Pi Ltd documentation all hope is lost.

The OP had proposed an edit to the Answer, which I rejected as this would have frozen the answer to the current state, actually reducing its value to future users. Sometimes the documentation is obscure, but in this case no further interpretation is required.

If the OP was clearer a more concrete answer may be possible however "which is encoded onto the SoC" answers the Question "Is the CM4 model number stored in flash?".

Having the ACTUAL Answer in a Comment is counter to SO practice!

If the RPL site was better indexed (and had a search which worked) the OP could have found the answer - this site's answers are often an index to the official documentation.

This link is to active documentation which changes often as new models/configuration changes occur. This list is as long as your arm - I couldn't be bothered to count as there are so many!

1 Answer 1

5

If we can't trust Raspberry Pi Ltd documentation all hope is lost.

That's interesting, because you yourself observed in another post that at least once in the past they have invalidated links by re-organizing documentation:

The Foundation has just scrambled their documentation

I actually read the post in question here when it was new and turned a blind eye to it. However, it was then flagged by another user because this user attempted to edit the question to make it not "informationless", and the edit was declined. To be fair, once someone else notices a violation I have to enforce the same rules for everyone, and not leave counter examples to them around ("Because you can't swear but Bob and I can.").

This link is to active documentation which changes often as new models/configuration changes occur.

The suggested edit was not the only possibility WRT to adding some relevant information.

This list is as long as your arm - I couldn't be bothered to count as there are so many!

No one expects you to include everything verbatim from a linked doc. Although in a sense posting some information but not enough for a complete answer and then saying "further details in this link" sort of legalistically skirts the rule, the result is still subject to up/down voting and users generally can then decide how worthwhile the post is.

My thought the first time I looked at it was -- and this took all of 15-20 seconds -- that since the actual question was "In raspian [sic] is there a way to pull the model number or is it stored somewhere on the CM4?" (ie., nothing about what they all are), a complete answer linking and quoting the documentation might be:

Each distinct Raspberry Pi model revision has a unique revision code. You can look up a Raspberry Pi’s revision code by running:

 cat /proc/cpuinfo

Which does make it a bit strange that the OP wanted to add the list of codes to your answer (perhaps that was just an even lazier strategy than quoting it).

In any case, it is not at all a difficult rule to obey. If you are linking information and you understand what that information is, you should easily be able to provide a brief summary or highlight of a pertinent point. The rule has also been around for 7+ years, so if you did not know about it before, you do now. It was originally posted here, and was decided upon collectively by the moderators at that time after the issue was raised by another user in relation to a practice that is common across the SE network -- more information about that is in the full post ;)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .