[PATCH 2/2 v3] smbios: Fallback to the default DT if sysinfo nodes are missing

[Peter Robinson]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 6:57 PM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:11, Tom Rini <trini at 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?
> 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

You miss this:
* Patch submitter ignores questions, feedback, concerns from
maintainers to the point that people mute the thread

> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Simon