Francois Toguo Fotso has posted comments on this change. (
Change subject: smbios: Add and adapt fields for version 3.2
Patch Set 5:
Patch Set 5:
Repost as gerrit messed up the message:
There's one file making use of struct smbios_entry: src/arch/x86/smbios.c
Of course you would add a second struct for the 64bit entry point and keep the 32bit
If the callers should provide the value in the correct unit the SMBIOS spec defines, you
should update all callers instead.
I don't see how chromium patches relate to coreboot and why you would mention them in
the commit message.
|> I don't see how chromium patches relate to coreboot
Because these SMBIOS information are ultimatly consumed in chromium, more specifically in
mosys, and smbios related changes are going there.
|> why you would mention them in the commit message.
Please see the earlier request/comment from Paul.
|> There's one file making use of struct smbios_entry: src/arch/x86/smbios.c
See my comment above. That information is consumed outside of coreboot and the
smbios_entry struct is also defined at the caller's side and elsewhere:
Those definitions have to be consistent, otherwise the system becomes unstable.
|> Of course you would add a second struct for the 64bit entry point and keep the 32bit
|> If the callers should provide the value in the correct unit the SMBIOS spec defines,
you should update all callers instead.
Maybe I am missing something, but not sure I understand the 2 sentences above. If you have
2 formats of smbios_entry which one would you return? The caller's only passes one
variable into which this function "concatenate" the fields info, and the caller
retrieves the information using the same standard definition of smbios_entry. Why would
you need 2 definitions?
Are you asking to change all the functions through which this information passes through?
And if so, how would you do that in this commit? Since those files are not include here.
Even if that is your request it conflict's with Nico's who wants to reduce the
amount of changes going in here.
In short, having one definition of smbios_entry on one side of the system and a different
one on the end, would break the whole flow.
Please let me know if I am missing something
To view, visit https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/32090
To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit
Gerrit-Owner: Francois Toguo Fotso <francois.toguo.fotso(a)intel.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Francois Toguo Fotso <francois.toguo.fotso(a)intel.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Nico Huber <nico.h(a)gmx.de>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi(a)google.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Patrick Rudolph <siro(a)das-labor.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Paul Menzel <paulepanter(a)users.sourceforge.net>
Gerrit-Reviewer: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply(a)coreboot.org>
Gerrit-CC: Francois Toguo Fotso
Gerrit-CC: Lijian Zhao <lijian.zhao(a)intel.com>
Gerrit-CC: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph(a)9elements.com>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 22:10:39 +0000