| Message ID | 20220906134426.53748-1-ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] smbios: Simplify reporting of unknown values | expand |
Hi Ilias, On Tue, 6 Sept 2022 at 07:44, Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > If a value is not valid during the DT or SYSINFO parsing, we explicitly > set that to "Unknown Product" and "Unknown" for the product and > manufacturer respectively. It's cleaner if we move the checks insisde > smbios_add_string() and always report "Unknown" regardless of the missing > field. > > pre-patch dmidecode > <snip> > Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes > System Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown Product > Version: Not Specified > Serial Number: Not Specified > UUID: Not Settable > Wake-up Type: Reserved > SKU Number: Not Specified > Family: Not Specified > > Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes > Base Board Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown Product > Version: Not Specified > Serial Number: Not Specified > Asset Tag: Not Specified > Features: > Board is a hosting board > Location In Chassis: Not Specified > Chassis Handle: 0x0000 > Type: Motherboard > <snip> > > post-patch dmidecode: > > Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes > System Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown > Version: Unknown > Serial Number: Unknown > UUID: Not Settable > Wake-up Type: Reserved > SKU Number: Unknown > Family: Unknown > > Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes > Base Board Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown > Version: Unknown > Serial Number: Not Specified > Asset Tag: Unknown > Features: > Board is a hosting board > Location In Chassis: Not Specified > Chassis Handle: 0x0000 > Type: Motherboard > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > --- > lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? What upstream projects use this information to show things to the user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are not adding fake information to SMBIOS. Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we use the device tree binding for the same info: smbios { compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; smbios { system { manufacturer = "pine64"; product = "rock64_rk3328"; }; baseboard { manufacturer = "pine64"; product = "rock64_rk3328"; }; chassis { manufacturer = "pine64"; product = "rock64_rk3328"; }; }; }; This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that we don't need. Regards, Simon
Hi Simon, [...] > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > > --- > > lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think we still need it > > What upstream projects use this information to show things to the > user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We > could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are > not adding fake information to SMBIOS. > What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to be <manufacturer, model> anyway. > Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we > use the device tree binding for the same info: > > smbios { > compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; > > smbios { > system { > manufacturer = "pine64"; > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > }; > > baseboard { > manufacturer = "pine64"; > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > }; > > chassis { > manufacturer = "pine64"; > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > }; > }; > }; > > This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that > we don't need. That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. Thanks /Ilias > > Regards, > Simon
On 9/16/22 16:30, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Hi Simon, > > [...] > >>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> >> Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? > > Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think > we still need it > >> >> What upstream projects use this information to show things to the >> user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We >> could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are >> not adding fake information to SMBIOS. >> > > What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT > and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. > What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the > compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to > be <manufacturer, model> anyway. > Manufacturer: socionext,developer-box > Product Name: Socionext Developer Box Well, firstly, the manufacturer is "Socionext", not "socionext,developer-box". Compatibles are not suitable for user-visible identifiers. The product name should also be something like "Socionext Developerbox" or maybe "SynQuacer E-series", but this more of a "bug" in the devicetree model property. Second, these identifiers are not suitable for all structures you want to use it for. For example, the chassis is really a "INWIN industrial PC case: MicroATX mini-tower case IW-BK623/300-H E USB 3.0 Black with 300W SFX power supply" [1]. I would describe this as something like Handle 0x0003, DMI type 3, 21 bytes Chassis Information Manufacturer: INWIN Type: Mini Tower Lock: Not Present Version: Unknown Serial Number: Not Specified Asset Tag: Not Specified Boot-up State: Safe Power Supply State: Safe Thermal State: Safe Security Status: None OEM Information: 0x00000000 Height: Unspecified Number Of Power Cords: 1 Contained Elements: 0 The exact values are not particularly important, but I would certainly classify a manufacturer of "socionext,developer-box" as fake. We might not even know what the chassis is; what's to stop a user from using a different case? [1] https://www.96boards.org/documentation/enterprise/developerbox/hardware-docs/MN04-00002-3E.pdf >> Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we >> use the device tree binding for the same info: >> >> smbios { >> compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; >> >> smbios { >> system { >> manufacturer = "pine64"; >> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >> }; >> >> baseboard { >> manufacturer = "pine64"; >> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >> }; >> >> chassis { >> manufacturer = "pine64"; >> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >> }; >> }; >> }; >> >> This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that >> we don't need. > > That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are > already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends > up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT > handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. I agree. I think a better example would fill in these fields with descriptive values. > As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 > boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we > could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there > and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. IMO SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD are more descriptive than the devicetree values, but neither is good... How many boards do we have which actually use the SMBIOS tables? There are a lot of boards with EFI_LOADER enabled by default, but I suspect most never boot anything EFI. --Sean
Hi Simon, Adding Rob for information around putting things in device tree. > > If a value is not valid during the DT or SYSINFO parsing, we explicitly > > set that to "Unknown Product" and "Unknown" for the product and > > manufacturer respectively. It's cleaner if we move the checks insisde > > smbios_add_string() and always report "Unknown" regardless of the missing > > field. > > > > pre-patch dmidecode > > <snip> > > Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes > > System Information > > Manufacturer: Unknown > > Product Name: Unknown Product > > Version: Not Specified > > Serial Number: Not Specified > > UUID: Not Settable > > Wake-up Type: Reserved > > SKU Number: Not Specified > > Family: Not Specified > > > > Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes > > Base Board Information > > Manufacturer: Unknown > > Product Name: Unknown Product > > Version: Not Specified > > Serial Number: Not Specified > > Asset Tag: Not Specified > > Features: > > Board is a hosting board > > Location In Chassis: Not Specified > > Type: Motherboard > > <snip> > > > > post-patch dmidecode: > > > > Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes > > System Information > > Manufacturer: Unknown > > Product Name: Unknown > > Version: Unknown > > Serial Number: Unknown > > UUID: Not Settable > > Wake-up Type: Reserved > > SKU Number: Unknown > > Family: Unknown > > > > Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes > > Base Board Information > > Manufacturer: Unknown > > Product Name: Unknown > > Version: Unknown > > Serial Number: Not Specified > > Asset Tag: Unknown > > Features: > > Board is a hosting board > > Location In Chassis: Not Specified > > Chassis Handle: 0x0000 > > Type: Motherboard > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > > --- > > lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? > > What upstream projects use this information to show things to the > user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We > could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are > not adding fake information to SMBIOS. Lots of things use it, particularly for enterprise support platforms. The system-info apps you mention above are the GNOME about dialog box and a tool called neofetch (which I personally don't particularly care for but people like it for some reason). There's general tools like dmidecode that use the information, but there's a LOT of open source tools that use the SMBIOS information, most of the Desktop UX About or HW tools, a lot of support tools like sosreport (https://github.com/sosreport/sos), and server management tools like cockpit (https://cockpit-project.org/) and uncountable proprietary tools. The problem with putting these things into Device Tree is that they're not really describing the hardware explicitly and it's U-Boot specific and Rob has mentioned in the past we absolutely shouldn't be making things up that don't belong in Device Tree. > Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we > use the device tree binding for the same info: You say it's legacy, yet it released a new 3.6.0 version in June this year and is used extensively across x86 and is required for some of the Arm SystemReady standards. Doesn't appear particularly legacy to me. While I don't particularly like SMBIOS either it's the standard and widely used, I don't see it going anywhere soon. The advantage of it from someone who had to deal with end to end I feel it's better to support this because patching all the various projects to support other things and getting them deployed and enterprises and third parties to upgrade and integrate into their platforms and processes. Which from experience takes an extremely long time! > smbios { > compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; > > smbios { > system { > manufacturer = "pine64"; > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > }; > > baseboard { > manufacturer = "pine64"; > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > }; > > chassis { > manufacturer = "pine64"; > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > }; > }; > }; > > This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that > we don't need. I don't see this is any more pretty or any better than getting the information from Device Tree, moving forward I think it would also be useful to populate things like serial numbers from the fuse/otp blocks which we often already display either on the console during boot for via various commands. Overall I think we need to be practical, this is a standard that is widely used now, it's much more straight forward for the overall ecosystem to continue to use a widely adopted standard rather than trying to update all the open and proprietary tools out there to some new "standard" that is only useful for device tree platforms. I'll reference XKCD here for that: https://xkcd.com/927/ Peter
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:44 PM Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > If a value is not valid during the DT or SYSINFO parsing, we explicitly > set that to "Unknown Product" and "Unknown" for the product and > manufacturer respectively. It's cleaner if we move the checks insisde > smbios_add_string() and always report "Unknown" regardless of the missing > field. The data below probably can go below the --- as I'm not sure it's useful in the final commit. > pre-patch dmidecode > <snip> > Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes > System Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown Product > Version: Not Specified > Serial Number: Not Specified > UUID: Not Settable > Wake-up Type: Reserved > SKU Number: Not Specified > Family: Not Specified > > Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes > Base Board Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown Product > Version: Not Specified > Serial Number: Not Specified > Asset Tag: Not Specified > Features: > Board is a hosting board > Location In Chassis: Not Specified > Chassis Handle: 0x0000 > Type: Motherboard > <snip> > > post-patch dmidecode: > > Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes > System Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown > Version: Unknown > Serial Number: Unknown > UUID: Not Settable > Wake-up Type: Reserved > SKU Number: Unknown > Family: Unknown > > Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes > Base Board Information > Manufacturer: Unknown > Product Name: Unknown > Version: Unknown > Serial Number: Not Specified > Asset Tag: Unknown > Features: > Board is a hosting board > Location In Chassis: Not Specified > Chassis Handle: 0x0000 > Type: Motherboard > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> Tested-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> > --- > lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/smbios.c b/lib/smbios.c > index d7f4999e8b2a..fcc8686993ef 100644 > --- a/lib/smbios.c > +++ b/lib/smbios.c > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int smbios_add_string(struct smbios_ctx *ctx, const char *str) > int i = 1; > char *p = ctx->eos; > > - if (!*str) > + if (!str || !*str) > str = "Unknown"; > > for (;;) { > @@ -151,8 +151,7 @@ static int smbios_add_prop_si(struct smbios_ctx *ctx, const char *prop, > const char *str; > > str = ofnode_read_string(ctx->node, prop); > - if (str) > - return smbios_add_string(ctx, str); > + return smbios_add_string(ctx, str); > } > > return 0; > @@ -231,7 +230,7 @@ static int smbios_write_type0(ulong *current, int handle, > t->vendor = smbios_add_string(ctx, "U-Boot"); > > t->bios_ver = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "version"); > - if (!t->bios_ver) > + if (!strcmp(ctx->last_str, "Unknown")) > t->bios_ver = smbios_add_string(ctx, PLAIN_VERSION); > if (t->bios_ver) > gd->smbios_version = ctx->last_str; > @@ -281,11 +280,7 @@ static int smbios_write_type1(ulong *current, int handle, > fill_smbios_header(t, SMBIOS_SYSTEM_INFORMATION, len, handle); > smbios_set_eos(ctx, t->eos); > t->manufacturer = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "manufacturer"); > - if (!t->manufacturer) > - t->manufacturer = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown"); > t->product_name = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "product"); > - if (!t->product_name) > - t->product_name = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown Product"); > t->version = smbios_add_prop_si(ctx, "version", > SYSINFO_ID_SMBIOS_SYSTEM_VERSION); > if (serial_str) { > @@ -315,11 +310,7 @@ static int smbios_write_type2(ulong *current, int handle, > fill_smbios_header(t, SMBIOS_BOARD_INFORMATION, len, handle); > smbios_set_eos(ctx, t->eos); > t->manufacturer = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "manufacturer"); > - if (!t->manufacturer) > - t->manufacturer = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown"); > t->product_name = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "product"); > - if (!t->product_name) > - t->product_name = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown Product"); > t->version = smbios_add_prop_si(ctx, "version", > SYSINFO_ID_SMBIOS_BASEBOARD_VERSION); > t->asset_tag_number = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "asset-tag"); > @@ -344,8 +335,6 @@ static int smbios_write_type3(ulong *current, int handle, > fill_smbios_header(t, SMBIOS_SYSTEM_ENCLOSURE, len, handle); > smbios_set_eos(ctx, t->eos); > t->manufacturer = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "manufacturer"); > - if (!t->manufacturer) > - t->manufacturer = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown"); > t->chassis_type = SMBIOS_ENCLOSURE_DESKTOP; > t->bootup_state = SMBIOS_STATE_SAFE; > t->power_supply_state = SMBIOS_STATE_SAFE; > -- > 2.37.2 >
Hi Sean On Sat, 17 Sept 2022 at 19:55, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/16/22 16:30, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > [...] > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > >>> --- > >>> lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > >> > >> Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? > > > > Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think > > we still need it > > > >> > >> What upstream projects use this information to show things to the > >> user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We > >> could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are > >> not adding fake information to SMBIOS. > >> > > > > What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT > > and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. > > What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the > > compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to > > be <manufacturer, model> anyway. > > > Manufacturer: socionext,developer-box > > Product Name: Socionext Developer Box > > Well, firstly, the manufacturer is "Socionext", not > "socionext,developer-box". Compatibles are not suitable for > user-visible identifiers. The product name should also be something like > "Socionext Developerbox" or maybe "SynQuacer E-series", but this more of > a "bug" in the devicetree model property. Yea as I said we can get rid of the everything after the ',' on the compatible node. Ideally if vendors followed the DT spec, we could also just use manufacturer node, the reality is that we can't though. The whole point of the patchset is provide something reasonable without having to add a .dtsi smbios node for all our devices. We can then go back to fixing the DT with proper values if it's a DT "bug". > > Second, these identifiers are not suitable for all structures you want > to use it for. For example, the chassis is really a "INWIN industrial PC > case: MicroATX mini-tower case IW-BK623/300-H E USB 3.0 Black with 300W > SFX power supply" [1]. I would describe this as something like The chassis isn't even addressed in the series. IIRC it's currently hardcoded in smbios.c. > > Handle 0x0003, DMI type 3, 21 bytes > Chassis Information > Manufacturer: INWIN > Type: Mini Tower > Lock: Not Present > Version: Unknown > Serial Number: Not Specified > Asset Tag: Not Specified > Boot-up State: Safe > Power Supply State: Safe > Thermal State: Safe > Security Status: None > OEM Information: 0x00000000 > Height: Unspecified > Number Of Power Cords: 1 > Contained Elements: 0 > > The exact values are not particularly important, but I would certainly > classify a manufacturer of "socionext,developer-box" as fake. We might > not even know what the chassis is; what's to stop a user from using a > different case? But the chassis isn't even addressed in the series? Again I am mostly interested in a sane fallback for device and manufacturer. > > [1] https://www.96boards.org/documentation/enterprise/developerbox/hardware-docs/MN04-00002-3E.pdf > > >> Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we > >> use the device tree binding for the same info: > >> > >> smbios { > >> compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; > >> > >> smbios { > >> system { > >> manufacturer = "pine64"; > >> product = "rock64_rk3328"; > >> }; > >> > >> baseboard { > >> manufacturer = "pine64"; > >> product = "rock64_rk3328"; > >> }; > >> > >> chassis { > >> manufacturer = "pine64"; > >> product = "rock64_rk3328"; > >> }; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that > >> we don't need. > > > > That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are > > already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends > > up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT > > handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. > > I agree. I think a better example would fill in these fields with > descriptive values. We are off to a chicken and egg problem now. Can you provide U-Boot with a 'configuration' DT, which would be disjoint from the DT that describes hardware? > > > As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 > > boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we > > could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there > > and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. > > IMO SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD are more descriptive than the devicetree > values, but neither is good... Didn't we use to do that? IOW fill in smbios nodes based on Kconfig values. But then we moved away from that in favor of the sysinfo-smbios node, but a very small amount of boards got converted. > > How many boards do we have which actually use the SMBIOS tables? There > are a lot of boards with EFI_LOADER enabled by default, but I suspect > most never boot anything EFI. I don't see how that's relevant? If someone for any reason enables smbios it shouldn't report always "Unknown". Thanks /Ilias > > --Sean
On 9/26/22 06:56, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > Hi Sean > > On Sat, 17 Sept 2022 at 19:55, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 9/16/22 16:30, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? >>> >>> Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think >>> we still need it >>> >>>> >>>> What upstream projects use this information to show things to the >>>> user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We >>>> could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are >>>> not adding fake information to SMBIOS. >>>> >>> >>> What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT >>> and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. >>> What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the >>> compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to >>> be <manufacturer, model> anyway. >> >>> Manufacturer: socionext,developer-box >>> Product Name: Socionext Developer Box >> >> Well, firstly, the manufacturer is "Socionext", not >> "socionext,developer-box". Compatibles are not suitable for >> user-visible identifiers. The product name should also be something like >> "Socionext Developerbox" or maybe "SynQuacer E-series", but this more of >> a "bug" in the devicetree model property. > > Yea as I said we can get rid of the everything after the ',' on the > compatible node. Ideally if vendors followed the DT spec, we could > also just use manufacturer node, the reality is that we can't though. This is another one of the problems with this approach. There's no consistency in existing device trees, because at most this info is printed in the boot log. > The whole point of the patchset is provide something reasonable > without having to add a .dtsi smbios node for all our devices. We can > then go back to fixing the DT with proper values if it's a DT "bug". >> >> Second, these identifiers are not suitable for all structures you want >> to use it for. For example, the chassis is really a "INWIN industrial PC >> case: MicroATX mini-tower case IW-BK623/300-H E USB 3.0 Black with 300W >> SFX power supply" [1]. I would describe this as something like > > The chassis isn't even addressed in the series. IIRC it's currently > hardcoded in smbios.c. You showed it as different in the commit message. >> >> Handle 0x0003, DMI type 3, 21 bytes >> Chassis Information >> Manufacturer: INWIN >> Type: Mini Tower >> Lock: Not Present >> Version: Unknown >> Serial Number: Not Specified >> Asset Tag: Not Specified >> Boot-up State: Safe >> Power Supply State: Safe >> Thermal State: Safe >> Security Status: None >> OEM Information: 0x00000000 >> Height: Unspecified >> Number Of Power Cords: 1 >> Contained Elements: 0 >> >> The exact values are not particularly important, but I would certainly >> classify a manufacturer of "socionext,developer-box" as fake. We might >> not even know what the chassis is; what's to stop a user from using a >> different case? > > But the chassis isn't even addressed in the series? Again I am mostly > interested in a sane fallback for device and manufacturer. ditto >> >> [1] https://www.96boards.org/documentation/enterprise/developerbox/hardware-docs/MN04-00002-3E.pdf >> >>>> Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we >>>> use the device tree binding for the same info: >>>> >>>> smbios { >>>> compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; >>>> >>>> smbios { >>>> system { >>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; >>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> baseboard { >>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; >>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> chassis { >>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; >>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >>>> }; >>>> }; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that >>>> we don't need. >>> >>> That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are >>> already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends >>> up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT >>> handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. >> >> I agree. I think a better example would fill in these fields with >> descriptive values. > > We are off to a chicken and egg problem now. Can you provide U-Boot > with a 'configuration' DT, which would be disjoint from the DT that > describes hardware? Sorry, I misread the context there. I still don't think this is the right approach for this... better to fix the prior stage's devicetree. >> >>> As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 >>> boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we >>> could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there >>> and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. >> >> IMO SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD are more descriptive than the devicetree >> values, but neither is good... > > Didn't we use to do that? IOW fill in smbios nodes based on Kconfig > values. But then we moved away from that in favor of the > sysinfo-smbios node, but a very small amount of boards got converted. I mean that SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD have content which more closely matches the content of the SMBios tables, not that we should use them ("neither is good..."). >> >> How many boards do we have which actually use the SMBIOS tables? There >> are a lot of boards with EFI_LOADER enabled by default, but I suspect >> most never boot anything EFI. > > I don't see how that's relevant? If someone for any reason enables > smbios it shouldn't report always "Unknown". I'm mostly trying to figure out how much effort it would be to just add nodes for all devices which boot with SMBios. I know that most boards which have it enabled don't actually use it, since it's enabled by default. --Sean
Hi, On Wed, 28 Sept 2022 at 22:34, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/26/22 06:56, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Sean > > > > On Sat, 17 Sept 2022 at 19:55, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 9/16/22 16:30, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > >>> Hi Simon, > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? > >>> > >>> Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think > >>> we still need it > >>> > >>>> > >>>> What upstream projects use this information to show things to the > >>>> user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We > >>>> could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are > >>>> not adding fake information to SMBIOS. > >>>> > >>> > >>> What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT > >>> and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. > >>> What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the > >>> compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to > >>> be <manufacturer, model> anyway. > >> > >>> Manufacturer: socionext,developer-box > >>> Product Name: Socionext Developer Box > >> > >> Well, firstly, the manufacturer is "Socionext", not > >> "socionext,developer-box". Compatibles are not suitable for > >> user-visible identifiers. The product name should also be something like > >> "Socionext Developerbox" or maybe "SynQuacer E-series", but this more of > >> a "bug" in the devicetree model property. > > > > Yea as I said we can get rid of the everything after the ',' on the > > compatible node. Ideally if vendors followed the DT spec, we could > > also just use manufacturer node, the reality is that we can't though. > > This is another one of the problems with this approach. There's no > consistency in existing device trees, because at most this info is > printed in the boot log. > > > The whole point of the patchset is provide something reasonable > > without having to add a .dtsi smbios node for all our devices. We can > > then go back to fixing the DT with proper values if it's a DT "bug". > >> > >> Second, these identifiers are not suitable for all structures you want > >> to use it for. For example, the chassis is really a "INWIN industrial PC > >> case: MicroATX mini-tower case IW-BK623/300-H E USB 3.0 Black with 300W > >> SFX power supply" [1]. I would describe this as something like > > > > The chassis isn't even addressed in the series. IIRC it's currently > > hardcoded in smbios.c. > > You showed it as different in the commit message. > > >> > >> Handle 0x0003, DMI type 3, 21 bytes > >> Chassis Information > >> Manufacturer: INWIN > >> Type: Mini Tower > >> Lock: Not Present > >> Version: Unknown > >> Serial Number: Not Specified > >> Asset Tag: Not Specified > >> Boot-up State: Safe > >> Power Supply State: Safe > >> Thermal State: Safe > >> Security Status: None > >> OEM Information: 0x00000000 > >> Height: Unspecified > >> Number Of Power Cords: 1 > >> Contained Elements: 0 > >> > >> The exact values are not particularly important, but I would certainly > >> classify a manufacturer of "socionext,developer-box" as fake. We might > >> not even know what the chassis is; what's to stop a user from using a > >> different case? > > > > But the chassis isn't even addressed in the series? Again I am mostly > > interested in a sane fallback for device and manufacturer. > > ditto > > >> > >> [1] https://www.96boards.org/documentation/enterprise/developerbox/hardware-docs/MN04-00002-3E.pdf > >> > >>>> Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we > >>>> use the device tree binding for the same info: > >>>> > >>>> smbios { > >>>> compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; > >>>> > >>>> smbios { > >>>> system { > >>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; > >>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; > >>>> }; > >>>> > >>>> baseboard { > >>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; > >>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; > >>>> }; > >>>> > >>>> chassis { > >>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; > >>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; > >>>> }; > >>>> }; > >>>> }; > >>>> > >>>> This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that > >>>> we don't need. > >>> > >>> That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are > >>> already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends > >>> up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT > >>> handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. > >> > >> I agree. I think a better example would fill in these fields with > >> descriptive values. > > > > We are off to a chicken and egg problem now. Can you provide U-Boot > > with a 'configuration' DT, which would be disjoint from the DT that > > describes hardware? > > Sorry, I misread the context there. > > I still don't think this is the right approach for this... better to fix > the prior stage's devicetree. > > >> > >>> As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 > >>> boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we > >>> could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there > >>> and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. > >> > >> IMO SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD are more descriptive than the devicetree > >> values, but neither is good... > > > > Didn't we use to do that? IOW fill in smbios nodes based on Kconfig > > values. But then we moved away from that in favor of the > > sysinfo-smbios node, but a very small amount of boards got converted. > > I mean that SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD have content which more closely > matches the content of the SMBios tables, not that we should use them > ("neither is good..."). > > >> > >> How many boards do we have which actually use the SMBIOS tables? There > >> are a lot of boards with EFI_LOADER enabled by default, but I suspect > >> most never boot anything EFI. > > > > I don't see how that's relevant? If someone for any reason enables > > smbios it shouldn't report always "Unknown". > > I'm mostly trying to figure out how much effort it would be to just add > nodes for all devices which boot with SMBios. I know that most boards > which have it enabled don't actually use it, since it's enabled by > default. It is a patch like this: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220929001520.9095-1-christian@kohlschutter.com/ I just found out that this option is enabled for hundreds of boards. Perhaps the solution is to turn it off unless the board enables it? Regards, Simon
Hi Sean, On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:34:37AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 9/26/22 06:56, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Sean > > > > On Sat, 17 Sept 2022 at 19:55, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/16/22 16:30, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? > > > > > > > > Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think > > > > we still need it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What upstream projects use this information to show things to the > > > > > user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We > > > > > could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are > > > > > not adding fake information to SMBIOS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT > > > > and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. > > > > What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the > > > > compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to > > > > be <manufacturer, model> anyway. > > > > > > > Manufacturer: socionext,developer-box > > > > Product Name: Socionext Developer Box > > > > > > Well, firstly, the manufacturer is "Socionext", not > > > "socionext,developer-box". Compatibles are not suitable for > > > user-visible identifiers. The product name should also be something like > > > "Socionext Developerbox" or maybe "SynQuacer E-series", but this more of > > > a "bug" in the devicetree model property. > > > > Yea as I said we can get rid of the everything after the ',' on the > > compatible node. Ideally if vendors followed the DT spec, we could > > also just use manufacturer node, the reality is that we can't though. > > This is another one of the problems with this approach. There's no > consistency in existing device trees, because at most this info is > printed in the boot log. I see these 2 as completely disjoint problems tbh. The approach says "Let's use what the DT spec suggests to derive values that make sense as a last resort". The fact that some DTs decide to do differently is a side effect. But greping into DT's a bit all of the 'model' seems sane and all the values before the first ',' as well. > > > The whole point of the patchset is provide something reasonable > > without having to add a .dtsi smbios node for all our devices. We can > > then go back to fixing the DT with proper values if it's a DT "bug". > > > > > > Second, these identifiers are not suitable for all structures you want > > > to use it for. For example, the chassis is really a "INWIN industrial PC > > > case: MicroATX mini-tower case IW-BK623/300-H E USB 3.0 Black with 300W > > > SFX power supply" [1]. I would describe this as something like > > > > The chassis isn't even addressed in the series. IIRC it's currently > > hardcoded in smbios.c. > > You showed it as different in the commit message. Not on the commit message. Maybe you remember a discussion over IRC? In any case I think this is a moot argument. Whether we parse the chassis from the DT or the sysinfo-smbios in the DT someone still has to change the *text* if he changes the enclosure. So I don't really see any big difference here. > > > > > > > Handle 0x0003, DMI type 3, 21 bytes > > > Chassis Information > > > Manufacturer: INWIN > > > Type: Mini Tower > > > Lock: Not Present > > > Version: Unknown > > > Serial Number: Not Specified > > > Asset Tag: Not Specified > > > Boot-up State: Safe > > > Power Supply State: Safe > > > Thermal State: Safe > > > Security Status: None > > > OEM Information: 0x00000000 > > > Height: Unspecified > > > Number Of Power Cords: 1 > > > Contained Elements: 0 > > > > > > The exact values are not particularly important, but I would certainly > > > classify a manufacturer of "socionext,developer-box" as fake. We might > > > not even know what the chassis is; what's to stop a user from using a > > > different case? > > > > But the chassis isn't even addressed in the series? Again I am mostly > > interested in a sane fallback for device and manufacturer. > > ditto > > > > > > > [1] https://www.96boards.org/documentation/enterprise/developerbox/hardware-docs/MN04-00002-3E.pdf > > > > > > > > Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we > > > > > use the device tree binding for the same info: > > > > > > > > > > smbios { > > > > > compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; > > > > > > > > > > smbios { > > > > > system { > > > > > manufacturer = "pine64"; > > > > > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > baseboard { > > > > > manufacturer = "pine64"; > > > > > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > chassis { > > > > > manufacturer = "pine64"; > > > > > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > > > > > }; > > > > > }; > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that > > > > > we don't need. > > > > > > > > That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are > > > > already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends > > > > up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT > > > > handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. > > > > > > I agree. I think a better example would fill in these fields with > > > descriptive values. > > > > We are off to a chicken and egg problem now. Can you provide U-Boot > > with a 'configuration' DT, which would be disjoint from the DT that > > describes hardware? > > Sorry, I misread the context there. > > I still don't think this is the right approach for this... better to fix > the prior stage's devicetree. You are asking bootloaders that run *before* U-Boot to add nodes that are not in any spec and demand to respect an internal U-Boot API. That sounds like a layering violation to me. > > > > > > > > As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 > > > > boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we > > > > could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there > > > > and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. > > > > > > IMO SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD are more descriptive than the devicetree > > > values, but neither is good... > > > > Didn't we use to do that? IOW fill in smbios nodes based on Kconfig > > values. But then we moved away from that in favor of the > > sysinfo-smbios node, but a very small amount of boards got converted. > > I mean that SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD have content which more closely > matches the content of the SMBios tables, not that we should use them > ("neither is good..."). > > > > > > > How many boards do we have which actually use the SMBIOS tables? There > > > are a lot of boards with EFI_LOADER enabled by default, but I suspect > > > most never boot anything EFI. > > > > I don't see how that's relevant? If someone for any reason enables > > smbios it shouldn't report always "Unknown". > > I'm mostly trying to figure out how much effort it would be to just add > nodes for all devices which boot with SMBios. I know that most boards > which have it enabled don't actually use it, since it's enabled by > default. There are 1079 .dts atm and only 13 have smbios nodes (for arm only). It's not too much but it's not trivial. While at it, who's going to make sure that every new board has an smbios node even if we fix it ? FWIW, these comments should have been on patch 2/2. The first patch is a straight cleanup we should pick up Thanks /Ilias > > --Sean
On 9/29/22 05:59, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 28 Sept 2022 at 22:34, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 9/26/22 06:56, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>> Hi Sean >>> >>> On Sat, 17 Sept 2022 at 19:55, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 9/16/22 16:30, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think >>>>> we still need it >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What upstream projects use this information to show things to the >>>>>> user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We >>>>>> could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are >>>>>> not adding fake information to SMBIOS. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT >>>>> and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. >>>>> What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the >>>>> compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to >>>>> be <manufacturer, model> anyway. >>>> >>>>> Manufacturer: socionext,developer-box >>>>> Product Name: Socionext Developer Box >>>> >>>> Well, firstly, the manufacturer is "Socionext", not >>>> "socionext,developer-box". Compatibles are not suitable for >>>> user-visible identifiers. The product name should also be something like >>>> "Socionext Developerbox" or maybe "SynQuacer E-series", but this more of >>>> a "bug" in the devicetree model property. >>> >>> Yea as I said we can get rid of the everything after the ',' on the >>> compatible node. Ideally if vendors followed the DT spec, we could >>> also just use manufacturer node, the reality is that we can't though. >> >> This is another one of the problems with this approach. There's no >> consistency in existing device trees, because at most this info is >> printed in the boot log. >> >>> The whole point of the patchset is provide something reasonable >>> without having to add a .dtsi smbios node for all our devices. We can >>> then go back to fixing the DT with proper values if it's a DT "bug". >>>> >>>> Second, these identifiers are not suitable for all structures you want >>>> to use it for. For example, the chassis is really a "INWIN industrial PC >>>> case: MicroATX mini-tower case IW-BK623/300-H E USB 3.0 Black with 300W >>>> SFX power supply" [1]. I would describe this as something like >>> >>> The chassis isn't even addressed in the series. IIRC it's currently >>> hardcoded in smbios.c. >> >> You showed it as different in the commit message. >> >>>> >>>> Handle 0x0003, DMI type 3, 21 bytes >>>> Chassis Information >>>> Manufacturer: INWIN >>>> Type: Mini Tower >>>> Lock: Not Present >>>> Version: Unknown >>>> Serial Number: Not Specified >>>> Asset Tag: Not Specified >>>> Boot-up State: Safe >>>> Power Supply State: Safe >>>> Thermal State: Safe >>>> Security Status: None >>>> OEM Information: 0x00000000 >>>> Height: Unspecified >>>> Number Of Power Cords: 1 >>>> Contained Elements: 0 >>>> >>>> The exact values are not particularly important, but I would certainly >>>> classify a manufacturer of "socionext,developer-box" as fake. We might >>>> not even know what the chassis is; what's to stop a user from using a >>>> different case? >>> >>> But the chassis isn't even addressed in the series? Again I am mostly >>> interested in a sane fallback for device and manufacturer. >> >> ditto >> >>>> >>>> [1] https://www.96boards.org/documentation/enterprise/developerbox/hardware-docs/MN04-00002-3E.pdf >>>> >>>>>> Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we >>>>>> use the device tree binding for the same info: >>>>>> >>>>>> smbios { >>>>>> compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; >>>>>> >>>>>> smbios { >>>>>> system { >>>>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; >>>>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> baseboard { >>>>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; >>>>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> chassis { >>>>>> manufacturer = "pine64"; >>>>>> product = "rock64_rk3328"; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that >>>>>> we don't need. >>>>> >>>>> That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are >>>>> already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends >>>>> up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT >>>>> handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. >>>> >>>> I agree. I think a better example would fill in these fields with >>>> descriptive values. >>> >>> We are off to a chicken and egg problem now. Can you provide U-Boot >>> with a 'configuration' DT, which would be disjoint from the DT that >>> describes hardware? >> >> Sorry, I misread the context there. >> >> I still don't think this is the right approach for this... better to fix >> the prior stage's devicetree. >> >>>> >>>>> As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 >>>>> boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we >>>>> could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there >>>>> and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. >>>> >>>> IMO SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD are more descriptive than the devicetree >>>> values, but neither is good... >>> >>> Didn't we use to do that? IOW fill in smbios nodes based on Kconfig >>> values. But then we moved away from that in favor of the >>> sysinfo-smbios node, but a very small amount of boards got converted. >> >> I mean that SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD have content which more closely >> matches the content of the SMBios tables, not that we should use them >> ("neither is good..."). >> >>>> >>>> How many boards do we have which actually use the SMBIOS tables? There >>>> are a lot of boards with EFI_LOADER enabled by default, but I suspect >>>> most never boot anything EFI. >>> >>> I don't see how that's relevant? If someone for any reason enables >>> smbios it shouldn't report always "Unknown". >> >> I'm mostly trying to figure out how much effort it would be to just add >> nodes for all devices which boot with SMBios. I know that most boards >> which have it enabled don't actually use it, since it's enabled by >> default. > > It is a patch like this: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220929001520.9095-1-christian@kohlschutter.com/ > > I just found out that this option is enabled for hundreds of boards. I first noticed it when doing the K210 and wondering why I had EFI enabled. > Perhaps the solution is to turn it off unless the board enables it? But how do we determine if the board enables it? Since it was on by default, it's not so easy. One way would be to look at the boards which use bootefi, but from what I can tell, that's enabled by distroboot. Which has a similar problem where include/configs/mycpu_common.h might enable it, but (most of) the boards for that cpu might not care. --Sean
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:02:48AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 9/29/22 05:59, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 28 Sept 2022 at 22:34, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/26/22 06:56, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > Hi Sean > > > > > > > > On Sat, 17 Sept 2022 at 19:55, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 9/16/22 16:30, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps a better fix is to drop the smbios info? > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately there's a ton of userspace tools still using it. So I think > > > > > > we still need it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What upstream projects use this information to show things to the > > > > > > > user? You showed a screenshot of some sort of system-info app. We > > > > > > > could teach it about falling back to the device tree. That way we are > > > > > > > not adding fake information to SMBIOS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's fake here? The model and compatible are taken directly from the DT > > > > > > and that should be accurate. I'd rather fix the DT if that's problematic. > > > > > > What would make sense for me to change is take the first token of the > > > > > > compatible node instead of the entire string as it's format is expected to > > > > > > be <manufacturer, model> anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > Manufacturer: socionext,developer-box > > > > > > Product Name: Socionext Developer Box > > > > > > > > > > Well, firstly, the manufacturer is "Socionext", not > > > > > "socionext,developer-box". Compatibles are not suitable for > > > > > user-visible identifiers. The product name should also be something like > > > > > "Socionext Developerbox" or maybe "SynQuacer E-series", but this more of > > > > > a "bug" in the devicetree model property. > > > > > > > > Yea as I said we can get rid of the everything after the ',' on the > > > > compatible node. Ideally if vendors followed the DT spec, we could > > > > also just use manufacturer node, the reality is that we can't though. > > > > > > This is another one of the problems with this approach. There's no > > > consistency in existing device trees, because at most this info is > > > printed in the boot log. > > > > > > > The whole point of the patchset is provide something reasonable > > > > without having to add a .dtsi smbios node for all our devices. We can > > > > then go back to fixing the DT with proper values if it's a DT "bug". > > > > > > > > > > Second, these identifiers are not suitable for all structures you want > > > > > to use it for. For example, the chassis is really a "INWIN industrial PC > > > > > case: MicroATX mini-tower case IW-BK623/300-H E USB 3.0 Black with 300W > > > > > SFX power supply" [1]. I would describe this as something like > > > > > > > > The chassis isn't even addressed in the series. IIRC it's currently > > > > hardcoded in smbios.c. > > > > > > You showed it as different in the commit message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Handle 0x0003, DMI type 3, 21 bytes > > > > > Chassis Information > > > > > Manufacturer: INWIN > > > > > Type: Mini Tower > > > > > Lock: Not Present > > > > > Version: Unknown > > > > > Serial Number: Not Specified > > > > > Asset Tag: Not Specified > > > > > Boot-up State: Safe > > > > > Power Supply State: Safe > > > > > Thermal State: Safe > > > > > Security Status: None > > > > > OEM Information: 0x00000000 > > > > > Height: Unspecified > > > > > Number Of Power Cords: 1 > > > > > Contained Elements: 0 > > > > > > > > > > The exact values are not particularly important, but I would certainly > > > > > classify a manufacturer of "socionext,developer-box" as fake. We might > > > > > not even know what the chassis is; what's to stop a user from using a > > > > > different case? > > > > > > > > But the chassis isn't even addressed in the series? Again I am mostly > > > > interested in a sane fallback for device and manufacturer. > > > > > > ditto > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.96boards.org/documentation/enterprise/developerbox/hardware-docs/MN04-00002-3E.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, SMBIOS is a legacy thing and a PITA to work with. How about we > > > > > > > use the device tree binding for the same info: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smbios { > > > > > > > compatible = "u-boot,sysinfo-smbios"; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smbios { > > > > > > > system { > > > > > > > manufacturer = "pine64"; > > > > > > > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > baseboard { > > > > > > > manufacturer = "pine64"; > > > > > > > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chassis { > > > > > > > manufacturer = "pine64"; > > > > > > > product = "rock64_rk3328"; > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is easy to parse and gets us away from all this legacy junk that > > > > > > > we don't need. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the exact opposite of the patch description. Most of these info are > > > > > > already included in the DT in it's standard properties. So if U-Boot ends > > > > > > up with a DT without these we get a usable smbios table. For example a DT > > > > > > handed over by the previous stage bootloader would not include these nodes. > > > > > > > > > > I agree. I think a better example would fill in these fields with > > > > > descriptive values. > > > > > > > > We are off to a chicken and egg problem now. Can you provide U-Boot > > > > with a 'configuration' DT, which would be disjoint from the DT that > > > > describes hardware? > > > > > > Sorry, I misread the context there. > > > > > > I still don't think this is the right approach for this... better to fix > > > the prior stage's devicetree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as sysinfo-smbios node is concerned, it's only present in 13 > > > > > > boards, so it's not like it's used by the majority of boards. Yes we > > > > > > could fix them, but imho we are better off re-using what's already there > > > > > > and defined on the DT spec at least for the simplistic values. > > > > > > > > > > IMO SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD are more descriptive than the devicetree > > > > > values, but neither is good... > > > > > > > > Didn't we use to do that? IOW fill in smbios nodes based on Kconfig > > > > values. But then we moved away from that in favor of the > > > > sysinfo-smbios node, but a very small amount of boards got converted. > > > > > > I mean that SYS_VENDOR and SYS_BOARD have content which more closely > > > matches the content of the SMBios tables, not that we should use them > > > ("neither is good..."). > > > > > > > > > > > > > How many boards do we have which actually use the SMBIOS tables? There > > > > > are a lot of boards with EFI_LOADER enabled by default, but I suspect > > > > > most never boot anything EFI. > > > > > > > > I don't see how that's relevant? If someone for any reason enables > > > > smbios it shouldn't report always "Unknown". > > > > > > I'm mostly trying to figure out how much effort it would be to just add > > > nodes for all devices which boot with SMBios. I know that most boards > > > which have it enabled don't actually use it, since it's enabled by > > > default. > > > > It is a patch like this: > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20220929001520.9095-1-christian@kohlschutter.com/ > > > > I just found out that this option is enabled for hundreds of boards. > > I first noticed it when doing the K210 and wondering why I had EFI > enabled. > > > Perhaps the solution is to turn it off unless the board enables it? > > But how do we determine if the board enables it? Since it was on by > default, it's not so easy. One way would be to look at the boards which > use bootefi, but from what I can tell, that's enabled by distroboot. > Which has a similar problem where include/configs/mycpu_common.h might > enable it, but (most of) the boards for that cpu might not care. I think the point that's trying to be made in the thread is that this bit of code is common and widely used / visible as it's part of the regular commodity Linux distro "tell the user useful things" tools. So it should default to be as correct as can be.
diff --git a/lib/smbios.c b/lib/smbios.c index d7f4999e8b2a..fcc8686993ef 100644 --- a/lib/smbios.c +++ b/lib/smbios.c @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int smbios_add_string(struct smbios_ctx *ctx, const char *str) int i = 1; char *p = ctx->eos; - if (!*str) + if (!str || !*str) str = "Unknown"; for (;;) { @@ -151,8 +151,7 @@ static int smbios_add_prop_si(struct smbios_ctx *ctx, const char *prop, const char *str; str = ofnode_read_string(ctx->node, prop); - if (str) - return smbios_add_string(ctx, str); + return smbios_add_string(ctx, str); } return 0; @@ -231,7 +230,7 @@ static int smbios_write_type0(ulong *current, int handle, t->vendor = smbios_add_string(ctx, "U-Boot"); t->bios_ver = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "version"); - if (!t->bios_ver) + if (!strcmp(ctx->last_str, "Unknown")) t->bios_ver = smbios_add_string(ctx, PLAIN_VERSION); if (t->bios_ver) gd->smbios_version = ctx->last_str; @@ -281,11 +280,7 @@ static int smbios_write_type1(ulong *current, int handle, fill_smbios_header(t, SMBIOS_SYSTEM_INFORMATION, len, handle); smbios_set_eos(ctx, t->eos); t->manufacturer = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "manufacturer"); - if (!t->manufacturer) - t->manufacturer = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown"); t->product_name = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "product"); - if (!t->product_name) - t->product_name = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown Product"); t->version = smbios_add_prop_si(ctx, "version", SYSINFO_ID_SMBIOS_SYSTEM_VERSION); if (serial_str) { @@ -315,11 +310,7 @@ static int smbios_write_type2(ulong *current, int handle, fill_smbios_header(t, SMBIOS_BOARD_INFORMATION, len, handle); smbios_set_eos(ctx, t->eos); t->manufacturer = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "manufacturer"); - if (!t->manufacturer) - t->manufacturer = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown"); t->product_name = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "product"); - if (!t->product_name) - t->product_name = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown Product"); t->version = smbios_add_prop_si(ctx, "version", SYSINFO_ID_SMBIOS_BASEBOARD_VERSION); t->asset_tag_number = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "asset-tag"); @@ -344,8 +335,6 @@ static int smbios_write_type3(ulong *current, int handle, fill_smbios_header(t, SMBIOS_SYSTEM_ENCLOSURE, len, handle); smbios_set_eos(ctx, t->eos); t->manufacturer = smbios_add_prop(ctx, "manufacturer"); - if (!t->manufacturer) - t->manufacturer = smbios_add_string(ctx, "Unknown"); t->chassis_type = SMBIOS_ENCLOSURE_DESKTOP; t->bootup_state = SMBIOS_STATE_SAFE; t->power_supply_state = SMBIOS_STATE_SAFE;
If a value is not valid during the DT or SYSINFO parsing, we explicitly set that to "Unknown Product" and "Unknown" for the product and manufacturer respectively. It's cleaner if we move the checks insisde smbios_add_string() and always report "Unknown" regardless of the missing field. pre-patch dmidecode <snip> Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes System Information Manufacturer: Unknown Product Name: Unknown Product Version: Not Specified Serial Number: Not Specified UUID: Not Settable Wake-up Type: Reserved SKU Number: Not Specified Family: Not Specified Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes Base Board Information Manufacturer: Unknown Product Name: Unknown Product Version: Not Specified Serial Number: Not Specified Asset Tag: Not Specified Features: Board is a hosting board Location In Chassis: Not Specified Chassis Handle: 0x0000 Type: Motherboard <snip> post-patch dmidecode: Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes System Information Manufacturer: Unknown Product Name: Unknown Version: Unknown Serial Number: Unknown UUID: Not Settable Wake-up Type: Reserved SKU Number: Unknown Family: Unknown Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 14 bytes Base Board Information Manufacturer: Unknown Product Name: Unknown Version: Unknown Serial Number: Not Specified Asset Tag: Unknown Features: Board is a hosting board Location In Chassis: Not Specified Chassis Handle: 0x0000 Type: Motherboard Signed-off-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> --- lib/smbios.c | 17 +++-------------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)