Hi Simon, On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:00:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 11:17, Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 07:17:35AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Elliot, > > > > > > I am just picking up the discussion here, which was started on another thread. > > > > > > I can't see why this new feature is needed. We should be able to use > > > compatible strings, as we do now. I added a 'usage' section to the FIT > > > spec [1] which might help. I also incorporated the board revision and > > > variant information and some notes on how to add to the available > > > suffixes. > > > > > > Does that handle your use case? > > > > -rev and -sku don't fit the versioning scheme for QTI devices, so this > > isn't a generic enough approach. Patch 5 in this series describes the > > versioning scheme for us. > > > > In the other thread, we had talked about using some regex based approach > > for matching the root node compatible. I haven't had chance to work on > > that proposal and will try to get to it in the next couple weeks. > > OK, I look forward to it. Please do check the FIT best match approach > and see how it might be extended to handle your requirements. So far I > have not seen a need for regexes, but it is certainly a possibility. > I spent some time collecting feedback from the team on using compatible strings + regex-style approach and we're not able to add a regex library into firmware, so this approach unfortunately won't work for us. Because we have more axes of board identification than chromebook, using FIT's compatible strings isn't a scalable solution for us. I don't think we have incompatible problems, we only have more than 2-3 axes of information. Thanks, Elliot
