Recommend smbios #108
Recommend smbios #108
Conversation
Yes, I think we should. A lot of support tools use SMBIOS to provide information to users in a GUI/TUI and collect information for support cases. By propagating that information the existing versions of these tools will just function as expected and we don't have to try and boil the ocean to get everything updated to support other mechanisms. It's also a requirement of ServerReady so it allows alignment across all SystemReady certs. |
|
Example tool is sosreport and an example issue with a GUI management tool |
vstehle
force-pushed
the
smbios
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f7e6764 to
4d54245
Compare
|
Rebased. |
|
Should we have somewhere in the spec around suggesting/requiring SMBIOS tables to be presented and complete/accurate? |
|
Also this is useful: |
|
One solution is for EBBR to reference specific items from Base Boot Requirements (BBR) specification, section 9 - SMBIOS REQUIREMENTS. It is also possible to do it the other way around (or both ways), where the BBR specification (which already references EBBR spec, when defining the EBBR receipe) can detail the SMBIOS requirements for such systems. I can help with adding that language (or cross-reference) in BBR when needed. |
|
Rebased. |
vstehle
force-pushed
the
smbios
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6f3f3f2 to
64bc0c4
Compare
vstehle
force-pushed
the
smbios
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8712506 to
05203fc
Compare
|
I have updated this pull request to require SMBIOS and a few structures, starting with the ones both required in BBR v2.0 and implemented in U-Boot latest. |
|
Moving to draft after call of 11 Mar. |
|
Respun after call of 11 Mar:
|
- Strongly recommend SMBIOS, without requiring any specific table or structure for now. - Add a reference to the SMBIOS specification v3.7.0. Suggested-by: Peter Robinson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Vincent Stehlé <[email protected]>
|
Trim down even more: only recommend SMBIOS and do not require any specific structure or table. |
| SMBIOS | ||
| ------ | ||
|
|
||
| It is strongly recommended that firmware provides SMBIOS tables and structures. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should require that the information is provided as EFI configuration table:
It is strongly recommended that firmware provides an SMBIOS EFI configuration table with an SMBIOS 3.0 (64-bit) Entry Point and at least the following SMBIOS tables:
- BIOS Information (Type 0)
- System Information (Type 1)
- Baseboard (or Module) Information (Type 2)
- System Enclosure or Chassis (Type 3)
- Processor Information (Type 4)
| described in :UEFI:`4.6.1.1` and [SMBIOS]_ § 5 & 6. | ||
|
|
||
| .. warning:: A future version of this specification will require firmware to | ||
| provide SMBIOS tables and strutures and will explicitly list which ones are |
|
Dropping this pull request after the call of June 17; there is not enough remaining in the pull to be interesting. |
Start easy and just add details about the SMBIOS tables and structures, with a reference to the SMBIOS specification v3.7.0.
Should we remove the conditional and require SMBIOS?