On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 07:57:19PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 8/26/24 21:59, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 01:12:16PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > 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. > > > > OK, yes, lets set that aside. > > > > > 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. > > > > Yes, I agree the detection should be reworked a good bit as some > > information will be board design specific while others SoC specific. And > > we should avoid adding many unused at run time strings to all platforms > > that enable this too (looking at all the CPU vendor related stuff). > > > > I doubt on productive machines there will be much use of U-Boot's smbios > command use. It is more a developer tool. > > For reading all the details we currently have > lib/efi_loader/smbiosdump.efi which can dump the SMBIOS table to a file > that dmidecode can read. > > Maybe instead of adding more and more decoding logic into the U-Boot > smbios command we should add an smbios sub-command to dump to a file. > This would be less of a hassle than running an EFI program for the same > purpose.
Sounds like a good idea to me. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
