Hi Shantur,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 07:14, Shantur Rathore i@shantur.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 8:41 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 13:29, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 12:50:06PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 13:53, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 08:42:19PM +0000, Shantur Rathore wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:24 AM Shantur Rathore i@shantur.com wrote: > > Add smbios information for Pine64 RockPro64 board and enable in > config > > Signed-off-by: Shantur Rathore i@shantur.com > --- > Changes > v4: Change PINE64 to Pine64 > v3: Enable SYSINFO and SYSINFO_SMBIOS in defconfig > > arch/arm/dts/rk3399-rockpro64-u-boot.dtsi | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > configs/rockpro64-rk3399_defconfig | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-rockpro64-u-boot.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-rockpro64-u-boot.dtsi > index 732727d9b0..089732524a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-rockpro64-u-boot.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-rockpro64-u-boot.dtsi > @@ -9,6 +9,28 @@ > chosen { > u-boot,spl-boot-order = "same-as-spl", &spi_flash, &sdmmc, &sdhci; > }; > + > + smbios { > + compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; > + smbios { > + system { > + manufacturer = "Pine64"; > + product = "RockPro64"; > + };
[snip]
Yes, we should just defer this and pickup the SMBIOS series that Ilias has posted.
I don't think it is a suitable substitute, it is just a fallback.
So I believe this patch should be applied.
Please note that this patch is adding _less_ details than the top-level model field contains today for the platform. The only difference is "Pine64" vs "pine64".
The top-level model is "Pine64 RockPro64 v2.1", I believe. But:
- the first part of that is the manufacturer, not the product
- the second part is what we have in this patch
- the third part is the version
SMBIOS tries to split things up into separate fields.
So, perhaps a new version of this patch could add:
system { version = "2.1"; };
I can add the above or any more details needed to a new patch Will that be enough to make it merge-able
From my POV, yes. Having dug into this a bit, patches like this are
the only way we can get authoritative SMBIOS data. There are various user-space workarounds, but these should not cause any problems.
Regards, Simon