On 14.06.20 17:48, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 6/1/20 6:20 PM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >> On 6/1/20 4:43 PM, André Przywara wrote: >>> On 01/06/2020 14:56, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>> Provide accurate values of the manufacturer and the product name. >>>> >>>> PINE Microsystems Inc. is referred to on >>>> https://www.pine64.org/contact/. >>> >>> While this patch looks alright, I wonder if we can just use the "model" >>> property in the DT's root node, at least for the product name? This >>> would not only avoid every defconfig to be touched, but would also cover >>> all other platforms (at least ARM based ones, probably PPC and MIPS as >>> well). >> >> The relevant code is in lib/smbios.c. For boards that follow the driver >> model you could read the model node here. But that would unnecessarily >> increase the code size of the resulting binary. I doubt this would find >> Tom's sympathy. So you would have to generate the value at compile time. >> I have no clue how to do that. >> >> The model property for the PINE A64 LTS is "Pine64 LTS" while the board >> is called "PINE A64-LTS" by the manufacturer >> (https://www.pine64.org/devices/single-board-computers/pine-a64-lts/). >> So this approach does not lead to the correct result. >> >>> >>> The manufacturer is less straight-forward to handle generically, but the >>> string before the comma in the DT root's compatible property should give >>> a hint. The Linux kernel contains a machine readable list of those >>> prefixes: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml >>> So we could pick the vendor at compile time based on that. >>> Of course any config could still overwrite this. >> >> SMBIOS_MANUFACTURER defaults to SYS_VENDOR which is defined as "sunxi". >> >> The Linux vendor-prefix exists for ARM64 and is missing for the ARM >> architecture. So this cannot be a general solution. >> >> For the Pine64 A64-LTS the vendor-prefix is "allwinner". Neither "sunxi" >> nor "Allwinner" is the manufacturer of the PINE A64-LTS board. >> >> You have to set SMBIOS_MANUFACTURER on the board level. >> >>> >>> Does that make sense? >>> If people agree, I could try to make a patch for that. >> >> Please, reconsider the patch as is. > > Hello Andr+e > > any comments? > > Best regards > > Heinrich
Hello Andre, did you work on your idea of using the model property? Or can Jagan take the patch as is? Best regards Heinrich > >> >> Best regards >> >> Heinrich >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andre. >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> configs/pine64-lts_defconfig | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig >>>> b/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig >>>> index ef108a1a31..a8ff34a376 100644 >>>> --- a/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig >>>> +++ b/configs/pine64-lts_defconfig >>>> @@ -8,8 +8,10 @@ CONFIG_DRAM_ZQ=3881949 >>>> CONFIG_MMC0_CD_PIN="" >>>> CONFIG_MMC_SUNXI_SLOT_EXTRA=2 >>>> CONFIG_SPL_SPI_SUNXI=y >>>> +CONFIG_SMBIOS_PRODUCT_NAME="PINE A64-LTS" >>>> # CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_CLEAR_ON_INIT is not set >>>> CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="sun50i-a64-pine64-lts" >>>> CONFIG_SUN8I_EMAC=y >>>> CONFIG_USB_EHCI_HCD=y >>>> CONFIG_USB_OHCI_HCD=y >>>> +CONFIG_SMBIOS_MANUFACTURER="PINE Microsystems Inc." >>>> -- >>>> 2.26.2 >>>> >>> >> >
