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
