[PATCH] libretech-cc: Populate SMBIOS information

[Peter Robinson]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 2:50 PM Neil Armstrong
<neil.armstrong at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2023 15:09, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 02:46:29PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> >> On 21/11/2023 14:15, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:18:04AM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> >>>> Hi Tom,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20/11/2023 21:16, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>>> Enable CONFIG_SYSINFO_SMBIOS and populate the nodes so that Linux can
> >>>>> eventually display this information
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Posting this as this was the easiest platform for me to test some SMBIOS
> >>>>> related patches on and I needed to populate the nodes so I could check
> >>>>> things in dmidecode once Linux was up.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry to be late a the party, but can't this be dynamically found from DT's compatible & model ?
> >>>> Since I'll probably need to add this to all boards, it seems like a duplicate of what's already in the DT.
> >>>
> >>> Part of the "fun" as to why we have the binding here is that while we
> >>> could use the top-level model property, there's not a corresponding one
> >>> for manufacturer. I'm fine ignoring the patch I posted here and having a
> >>> longer discussion about populating SMBIOS more usefully, globally, as I
> >>> think has been suggested a time or two.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm ok landing it with the same data as from the vendor.
> >> but couldn't we use the first top-level compatible as default smbios data ?
> >>
> >> compatible = "vendor1,board-name", "vendor1,soc-name";
> >>
> >> and translate to:
> >>
> >>
> >> smbios {
> >>      system {
> >>              manufacturer = "vendor1";
> >>              product = "board-name";
> >>      };
> >>
> >>      baseboard {
> >>              manufacturer = "vendor1";
> >>              product = "board-name";
> >>      };
> >>
> >>      chassis {
> >>              manufacturer = "vendor1";
> >>              product = "board-name";
> >>      };
> >> };
> >>
> >> since the vendor name should be already documented in the linux
> >> bindings, same for the board name.
> >> And we would be free to add some custom data in the DT if needed.
> >>
> >> Anyway, not sure it's the right place to discuss about that !
> >
> > That's essentially
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220906134426.53748-2-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org/
> > which had a bunch of comments on 1/2:
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220906134426.53748-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org/
> >
> > But I think that since then some thoughts on the subject have changed
> > and that approach might be more welcome now than it was then.
> >
>
> Thanks for the pointer, seems I had the exact same idea.
> Hope this will be re-spinned, I don't want to add this to the 45 amlogic
> boards when we have the necessary info already available and documented...

Fedora has carried this patch for some time for the same reason, a lot
of the tools in distros around support use dmidecode for HW
information and reporting "Unknown" meant there was lots of reports
against tools all over the place. I'd been asking Ilias to upstream it
for a while so I'm in full agreement here and he did mention he would
resend it soon :)

Peter