On 17/12/2023 19:41, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 11:46:18AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:11, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:19:11PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
[snip]
The new DT nodes / SMBIOS binding [1] allows for the correct
information to be provided, though.
[snip]
[1]
https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/doc/device-tree-bindings/sysinfo/smbios.txt
I think the only feedback I can give on your message here is to please
go upstream that binding, and then we can see what to do afterwards.
I am still tearing my hair out waiting for the reserved-memory and
binman patches to be accepted. Every few weeks there is another
comment, but no action. Rob seems to be the only one engaged.
Perhaps I should do a conference talk about what is wrong with DT?
Perhaps.
This is my experience so far:
- there is no urgency to apply anything
- no one wins acclaim for applying a patch
- everyone complains later if a patch is applied that they didn't agree with
- people chime in wanting to understand the use case, but don't/can't/won't
- any sort of expressed doubt results in delay
- maintainers hope that the submitter will lose interest and go away
- not enough people add review tags, even if they look at it
... because they are worried about looking bad to others on the ML
I agree some subsystems are not easy to deal with, but it's not the case for
most of them (Qcom, Amlogic, TI, ST...),
and I think it's the case of some other Linux subsystems, and we all know it's
an issue but I do not have the power to solve that, so yes please do
a conference talk but not only about DT because it's simply not true.
I would be happy to discuss how to improve matters, but that is what I see.
Anyway, the lowest-hanging fruit at present is the U-Boot /options
stuff. I was hoping someone else would step up to clean it up. There
should be no impediment.
And my point with the above is that other SoC maintainers (Neil, for
amlogic) have said (paraphrasing) he does not want to do N smbios node
patches. Which is why Ilias' patch is if not 1000% correct, it's Good
Enough and will, if it's really a problem to have all lower case
information displayed, spur people to see providing that information as
a real problem that needs to be solved. Or it will be seen as good
enough.
If some platforms requires a more "correct" smbios dataset, then they're
welcome adding the required smbios node, and it's perfectly understandable,
but for the other community-maintained platforms we need some valid fallback
data otherwise they'll be de facto excluded from some tools for no valid
reasons.
Neil
