Hi Tom, On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:57 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 03:46:09PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > From: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 13:37:03 +0000 > > > > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:05 AM Ilias Apalodimas > > > <ilias.apalodi...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 at 09:40, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When the SMBIOS table is written to an address above 4GB a 32-bit > > > > > table > > > > > address is not large enough. > > > > > > > > > > Use an SMBIOS3 table in that case. > > > > > > > > Maybe I missed this on the previous revisions, but is there a reason > > > > we don't always use SMBIOS3 now? > > > > > > I am not sure...there was some comment about it not being supported in > > > some cases, so I have tried to accommodate that. > > > > > > > And perhaps try to install SMBIOS2 if > > > > 1. we fail > > > > > > due to? > > > > > > > 2. and the address is < 4GB > > > > > > We could, I suppose. Effectively we would drop generation of SMBIOS2. > > > > > > I really don't mind. This whole SMBIOS thing is a bit ridiculous, if > > > you ask me. > > > > Linux added support for the SMBIOS 3.0 64-bit entry point in 2014. I > > doubt anyone who cares about SMBIOS cares about kernels that old. > > > > So if it simplifies things, I'd drop support for the 32-bit SMBIOS > > entry point. > > I agree, lets just provide SMBIOS3 tables.
OK...I would like to do this as a followup patch, so we still have the SMBIOS2 in the git history. I will take a look. Regards, Simon