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 <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 13:29, Tom Rini <tr...@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 <tr...@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