Hi Neil,
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 16:43, Neil Armstrong neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
On 21/11/2023 15:09, Tom Rini wrote:
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 trini@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-ilia... which had a bunch of comments on 1/2: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220906134426.53748-1-ilia...
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.
Thanks for the pointer, seems I had the exact same idea. Hope this will be re-spinned, I don't want to add this to the 45 amlogic boards when we have the necessary info already available and documented...
I'll respin the patches Tom mentioned once I find some time to address the comments in v1. Hope to do it by the end of the week
Cheers /Ilias
Neil