[U-Boot] config: Define BOOTP client architecture and VCI for ARMv8

From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

Reuse the 32-bit ARM client architecture and identify ARMv8 specifically
by setting the BOOTP VCI string.

Cc: Dennis Gilmore <dennis@ausil.us>
Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
 include/config_distro_defaults.h | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

On 03/20/2015 06:11 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>
> Reuse the 32-bit ARM client architecture and identify ARMv8 specifically
> by setting the BOOTP VCI string.

Is there a newer version of https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4578.txt 
that says what this value should be? Even 32-bit ARM isn't in that 
document, so I'm not sure where 0x100 came from.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.txt 
lists RFC4578 as the document that defines these options, so I guess 
values have never been allocated for ARM?

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:22:59AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 06:11 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> >
> >Reuse the 32-bit ARM client architecture and identify ARMv8 specifically
> >by setting the BOOTP VCI string.
> 
> Is there a newer version of
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4578.txt that says what this value
> should be? Even 32-bit ARM isn't in that document, so I'm not sure
> where 0x100 came from.

I wonder if 0x100 is treated by the PXE implementations as "set but
invalid, don't use".  Digging into some PXE servers would shed some
light here.

On 03/20/2015 11:08 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:22:59AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/20/2015 06:11 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Reuse the 32-bit ARM client architecture and identify ARMv8 specifically
>>> by setting the BOOTP VCI string.
>>
>> Is there a newer version of
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4578.txt that says what this value
>> should be? Even 32-bit ARM isn't in that document, so I'm not sure
>> where 0x100 came from.
>
> I wonder if 0x100 is treated by the PXE implementations as "set but
> invalid, don't use".  Digging into some PXE servers would shed some
> light here.

I can't actually find any use of this in ISC DHCPd. At most, it might be 
a value that user config files can match against if they want. I guess 
it's not worth worrying about?

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 02:07:42PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 11:08 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:22:59AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >>On 03/20/2015 06:11 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> >>>
> >>>Reuse the 32-bit ARM client architecture and identify ARMv8 specifically
> >>>by setting the BOOTP VCI string.
> >>
> >>Is there a newer version of
> >>https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4578.txt that says what this value
> >>should be? Even 32-bit ARM isn't in that document, so I'm not sure
> >>where 0x100 came from.
> >
> >I wonder if 0x100 is treated by the PXE implementations as "set but
> >invalid, don't use".  Digging into some PXE servers would shed some
> >light here.
> 
> I can't actually find any use of this in ISC DHCPd. At most, it
> might be a value that user config files can match against if they
> want. I guess it's not worth worrying about?

Yeah, sounds like it to me.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 01:11:58PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:

> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
> 
> Reuse the 32-bit ARM client architecture and identify ARMv8 specifically
> by setting the BOOTP VCI string.
> 
> Cc: Dennis Gilmore <dennis@ausil.us>
> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!