Re: snd_soc_set_dmi_name - Shouldn't it use SYS_VENDOR?

[Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 15:02 -0600, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart
> <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > While in general DMI_SYS_VENDOR is commonly used, there are exceptions to
> > the rule, such as the very machine I am working on at the moment which does
> > have any useful DMI_SYS_VENDOR information (see below)
> > Mengdong may be able to comment on why we took this direction.
> 

I think it was probably due to our limited number of test machines all
reporting better info via DMI_BOARD_VENDOR.

> In a DMI database of 113 PC models that we have worked with here:
> 
> 112 have correct/meaningful sys_vendor, 1 is useless (To be filled by OEM)
> 106 have correct board_vendor, 7 have incorrect or useless values
> 
> And awkwardly the one system that I'd like to match in UCM rules here
> has correct sys_vendor but bad board_vendor.
> 

So given your larger database is showing better results for
DMI_SYS_VENDOR it may be best to try this first and if that's NULL then
use DMI_BOARD_VENDOR. 

Would you care to submit a patch ? or Mengdong ?  Sorry, I wont be able
to get to this for a week due to some travel.

Thanks

Liam