[PATCH 00/10] SMBIOS improvements

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:58:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Caleb,
> 
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 17:03, Caleb Connolly <caleb.connolly at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > > As a general comment, this is adding a load of code which is used by a
> > > lot of platforms. As more and more aarch64 platforms are created, this
> > > data grows. Why not use the devicetree for this hardware information?
> > > That is what it is for.
> >
> > This data does not belong in devicetree, the various system registers
> > exist to describe this information... Putting it in DT would be
> > duplicating it.
> 
> I am not wanting to duplicate info which can be read from system registers.
> 
> >
> > Using DT for this would additionally require having bindings accepted
> > upstream and for all SoCs to add them. To what end?
> 
> To get the correct information in there. How are boards supposed to
> add SMBIOS info? Do we end up creating a whole infra in U-Boot just
> for the driver to read it out? It just doesn't make any sense to me...
> 
> Let's put hardware info in the DT where it belongs.

I'm a little confused here because of some older threads on this overall
topic. Part of the issue here is that in user space, "everyone" has
SMBIOS-based tooling today, and wants to have that work, rather than
inventing new tooling or modify existing tooling. And you were concerned
I thought that we had tied SMBIOS too much to EFI being present when
indeed it should be possible to pass the location along to the OS
without EFI, but at the time Linux at least only supported that notion
on MIPS I think?

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20240826/c6cf0e66/attachment.sig>