From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:57:57 +0100 Received: from metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:2:b01:1d::104]) by lore.white.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLITF-002HYn-08 for lore@lore.pengutronix.de; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:57:57 +0100 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([2607:7c80:54:3::133]) by metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1vLITE-0002ho-Fi for lore@pengutronix.de; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:57:56 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=BD6AsI7mwZv9kgA3VbipM3hrRRUcOyo/KFxee2G2Qlg=; b=pFBrTl6IT7pXZ3v9CWqouvzGAH iRMi2w7MKUPRm+FwfwJk0dMmPp0yg+0mAxKSS7oBFHCiBkLm6ajqjf77ur6qz5I8sFYDIKZpAXalb M9+uMSrkDRkDcdMgFr9YMwqp7VX58zKyVZpaIrhnerY9KJQbqcZ6jqlp4FBUK/Tsq8r3Oa1UFWurR G+Noxc0BW8cvDvaRFMP8+hiFL3sM1V8lQdkm1mOXASo4aGQnIsLgX8Few/vIhucQBkjX6qkr7c686 1W8Hd6kQgu00zyI/8AGlX8fsqFVceGRj+S0bKilHkPyX6eSVgysi5IwZJxlIXgJ5sfX2v2sf/yEcI Buy9HYmA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vLISn-00000000CGl-1Mes; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:57:29 +0000 Received: from metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:2:b01:1d::104]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vLISk-00000000CGM-0kAd for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:57:27 +0000 Received: from ptz.office.stw.pengutronix.de ([2a0a:edc0:0:900:1d::77] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1vLISi-0002c1-KO; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:57:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:57:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Jonas Rebmann To: Sascha Hauer Cc: BAREBOX References: <20251117-tlv_bind_serial-v2-1-60c7b1e3e81b@pengutronix.de> <539763d8-582a-4ec0-90b3-bdd265a493d9@pengutronix.de> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <539763d8-582a-4ec0-90b3-bdd265a493d9@pengutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20251118_015726_243105_94D30550 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.34 ) X-BeenThere: barebox@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "barebox" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2607:7c80:54:3::133 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: barebox-bounces+lore=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tlv: Add tlv_bind_soc_uid mapping X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 08 May 2019 21:11:16 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on metis.whiteo.stw.pengutronix.de) Hi again, tiny addition: On 2025-11-18 10:49, Jonas Rebmann wrote: > On 2025-11-18 09:40, Sascha Hauer wrote: > To me the big question is: What is a SoC UID? > > Is it an arbitrary string that happens to be, for many SoCs composed of > [0-9A-F] and efficiently represented in binary in the efuses? Then it > feels a bit surprising to me to compare this 'arbitrary vendor-provided > string' case-insensitively. > > But if we consider this an arbitrary block of binary data, typically > looked at in hexadecimal then I suggest we use the raw "bytes"-format I > sent an RFC patch for on Nov 12, and compare to > barebox_get_soc_uid_bin(). I originally wrote that RFC patch for storing > SoC UIDs but had a conversation with Ahmad that led me to view the SoC > UID as an arbitrary string. However now that we have > barebox_get_soc_uid_bin(), I'm tempted to change my mind. I did consider changing this for v2 however in your [PATCH v2 1/9] "introduce SoC UID" you mentioned that "Others even print the binary data as decimal (qcom).". If we where to use 'raw "bytes"-format' as in my RFC, the data YAMLs would have hexadecimal representation and I'm not sure if that could get too confusing. At least we could consider to add a (mandatory?) YAML-field that specifies the number system. Regards, Jonas -- Pengutronix e.K. | Jonas Rebmann | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |