Hi Tom, On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 12:23, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:58:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Caleb, > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 17:03, Caleb Connolly <caleb.conno...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > As a general comment, this is adding a load of code which is used by a > > > > lot of platforms. As more and more aarch64 platforms are created, this > > > > data grows. Why not use the devicetree for this hardware information? > > > > That is what it is for. > > > > > > This data does not belong in devicetree, the various system registers > > > exist to describe this information... Putting it in DT would be > > > duplicating it. > > > > I am not wanting to duplicate info which can be read from system registers. > > > > > > > > Using DT for this would additionally require having bindings accepted > > > upstream and for all SoCs to add them. To what end? > > > > To get the correct information in there. How are boards supposed to > > add SMBIOS info? Do we end up creating a whole infra in U-Boot just > > for the driver to read it out? It just doesn't make any sense to me... > > > > Let's put hardware info in the DT where it belongs. > > I'm a little confused here because of some older threads on this overall > topic. Part of the issue here is that in user space, "everyone" has > SMBIOS-based tooling today, and wants to have that work, rather than > inventing new tooling or modify existing tooling. And you were concerned > I thought that we had tied SMBIOS too much to EFI being present when > indeed it should be possible to pass the location along to the OS > without EFI, but at the time Linux at least only supported that notion > on MIPS I think?
That is a whole other concern I have, that we are perpetuating this legacy format which is a real pain to work with, when we already have devicetree. Let's leave that issue aside as I have not detected any interest in solving that problem, or even any agreement that it is a problem. But for this particular series, I am just wanting to get the correct info in there. Having the CPU-detection code provide an opinion about what type of chassis is in use (just to take an example, the patch pieces I highlighted have been dropped from the email I am replying to) just seems a bit daft to me. Only the board vendor would know that info. Regards, Simon
