Hi again, tiny addition:
On 2025-11-18 10:49, Jonas Rebmann wrote:
On 2025-11-18 09:40, Sascha Hauer wrote:
To me the big question is: What is a SoC UID?
Is it an arbitrary string that happens to be, for many SoCs composed of
[0-9A-F] and efficiently represented in binary in the efuses? Then it
feels a bit surprising to me to compare this 'arbitrary vendor-provided
string' case-insensitively.
But if we consider this an arbitrary block of binary data, typically
looked at in hexadecimal then I suggest we use the raw "bytes"-format I
sent an RFC patch for on Nov 12, and compare to
barebox_get_soc_uid_bin(). I originally wrote that RFC patch for storing
SoC UIDs but had a conversation with Ahmad that led me to view the SoC
UID as an arbitrary string. However now that we have
barebox_get_soc_uid_bin(), I'm tempted to change my mind.
I did consider changing this for v2 however in your [PATCH v2 1/9]
"introduce SoC UID" you mentioned that "Others even print the binary
data as decimal (qcom).". If we where to use 'raw "bytes"-format' as in
my RFC, the data YAMLs would have hexadecimal representation and I'm not
sure if that could get too confusing. At least we could consider to add
a (mandatory?) YAML-field that specifies the number system.
Regards,
Jonas
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Jonas Rebmann |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
