On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 02:46:29PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 21/11/2023 14:15, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:18:04AM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On 20/11/2023 21:16, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > Enable CONFIG_SYSINFO_SMBIOS and populate the nodes so that Linux can
> > > > eventually display this information
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Posting this as this was the easiest platform for me to test some SMBIOS
> > > > related patches on and I needed to populate the nodes so I could check
> > > > things in dmidecode once Linux was up.
> > >
> > > Sorry to be late a the party, but can't this be dynamically found from
> > > DT's compatible & model ?
> > > Since I'll probably need to add this to all boards, it seems like a
> > > duplicate of what's already in the DT.
> >
> > Part of the "fun" as to why we have the binding here is that while we
> > could use the top-level model property, there's not a corresponding one
> > for manufacturer. I'm fine ignoring the patch I posted here and having a
> > longer discussion about populating SMBIOS more usefully, globally, as I
> > think has been suggested a time or two.
> >
>
> I'm ok landing it with the same data as from the vendor.
> but couldn't we use the first top-level compatible as default smbios data ?
>
> compatible = "vendor1,board-name", "vendor1,soc-name";
>
> and translate to:
>
>
> smbios {
> system {
> manufacturer = "vendor1";
> product = "board-name";
> };
>
> baseboard {
> manufacturer = "vendor1";
> product = "board-name";
> };
>
> chassis {
> manufacturer = "vendor1";
> product = "board-name";
> };
> };
>
> since the vendor name should be already documented in the linux
> bindings, same for the board name.
> And we would be free to add some custom data in the DT if needed.
>
> Anyway, not sure it's the right place to discuss about that !That's essentially https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220906134426.53748-2-ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org/ which had a bunch of comments on 1/2: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220906134426.53748-1-ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org/ But I think that since then some thoughts on the subject have changed and that approach might be more welcome now than it was then. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
