[PATCH 1/1] sunxi: Pine64-LTS: SMBIOS properties

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 6/1/20 6:20 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 6/1/20 4:43 PM, André Przywara wrote:
>> On 01/06/2020 14:56, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>> Provide accurate values of the manufacturer and the product name.
>>>
>>> PINE Microsystems Inc. is referred to on https://www.pine64.org/contact/.
>>
>> While this patch looks alright, I wonder if we can just use the "model"
>> property in the DT's root node, at least for the product name? This
>> would not only avoid every defconfig to be touched, but would also cover
>> all other platforms (at least ARM based ones, probably PPC and MIPS as
>> well).
>
> The relevant code is in lib/smbios.c. For boards that follow the driver
> model you could read the model node here. But that would unnecessarily
> increase the code size of the resulting binary. I doubt this would find
> Tom's sympathy. So you would have to generate the value at compile time.
> I have no clue how to do that.
>
> The model property for the PINE A64 LTS is "Pine64 LTS" while the board
> is called "PINE A64-LTS" by the manufacturer
> (https://www.pine64.org/devices/single-board-computers/pine-a64-lts/).
> So this approach does not lead to the correct result.
>
>>
>> The manufacturer is less straight-forward to handle generically, but the
>> string before the comma in the DT root's compatible property should give
>> a hint. The Linux kernel contains a machine readable list of those
>> prefixes: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml
>> So we could pick the vendor at compile time based on that.
>> Of course any config could still overwrite this.
>
> SMBIOS_MANUFACTURER defaults to SYS_VENDOR which is defined as "sunxi".
>
> The Linux vendor-prefix exists for ARM64 and is missing for the ARM
> architecture. So this cannot be a general solution.
>
> For the Pine64 A64-LTS the vendor-prefix is "allwinner". Neither "sunxi"
> nor "Allwinner" is the manufacturer of the PINE A64-LTS board.
>
> You have to set SMBIOS_MANUFACTURER on the board level.
>
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>> If people agree, I could try to make a patch for that.
>
> Please, reconsider the patch as is.

Hello Andr+e

any comments?

Best regards

Heinrich

>
> Best regards
>
> Heinrich
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andre.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>>> ---
>>>   configs/pine64-lts_defconfig | 2 ++
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig b/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig
>>> index ef108a1a31..a8ff34a376 100644
>>> --- a/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig
>>> +++ b/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig
>>> @@ -8,8 +8,10 @@ CONFIG_DRAM_ZQ=3881949
>>>   CONFIG_MMC0_CD_PIN=""
>>>   CONFIG_MMC_SUNXI_SLOT_EXTRA=2
>>>   CONFIG_SPL_SPI_SUNXI=y
>>> +CONFIG_SMBIOS_PRODUCT_NAME="PINE A64-LTS"
>>>   # CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_CLEAR_ON_INIT is not set
>>>   CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="sun50i-a64-pine64-lts"
>>>   CONFIG_SUN8I_EMAC=y
>>>   CONFIG_USB_EHCI_HCD=y
>>>   CONFIG_USB_OHCI_HCD=y
>>> +CONFIG_SMBIOS_MANUFACTURER="PINE Microsystems Inc."
>>> --
>>> 2.26.2
>>>
>>
>