[PATCH v4 4/7] smbios: Use SMBIOS 3.0 to support an address above 4GB

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tom,

On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 10:57 AM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 03:46:09PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 13:37:03 +0000
> > >
> > > Hi Ilias,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:05 AM Ilias Apalodimas
> > > <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Simon,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 at 09:40, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When the SMBIOS table is written to an address above 4GB a 32-bit table
> > > > > address is not large enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Use an SMBIOS3 table in that case.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I missed this on the previous revisions, but is there a reason
> > > > we don't always use SMBIOS3 now?
> > >
> > > I am not sure...there was some comment about it not being supported in
> > > some cases, so I have tried to accommodate that.
> > >
> > > >  And perhaps try to install SMBIOS2 if
> > > > 1. we fail
> > >
> > > due to?
> > >
> > > > 2. and the address is < 4GB
> > >
> > > We could, I suppose. Effectively we would drop generation of SMBIOS2.
> > >
> > > I really don't mind. This whole SMBIOS thing is a bit ridiculous, if
> > > you ask me.
> >
> > Linux added support for the SMBIOS 3.0 64-bit entry point in 2014.  I
> > doubt anyone who cares about SMBIOS cares about kernels that old.
> >
> > So if it simplifies things, I'd drop support for the 32-bit SMBIOS
> > entry point.
>
> I agree, lets just provide SMBIOS3 tables.

OK...I would like to do this as a followup patch, so we still have the
SMBIOS2 in the git history. I will take a look.

Regards,
Simon