Re: snd_soc_set_dmi_name - Shouldn't it use SYS_VENDOR?

[Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>]

On 04/27/2017 03:13 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart
> <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Not sure if we can really limit the conventions to type1 or type2 if we want
>> the names to be somewhat meaningful.
>>
>> I can't recall why we selected DMI_BOARD_VENDOR instead of DMI_SYS_VENDOR
>> though.
> Is it too late to change to DMI_SYS_VENDOR? Or to have both present in
> the string?
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.


Handle 0x0001, DMI type 1, 27 bytes
System Information
     Manufacturer:
     Product Name:
     Version:
     Serial Number:
     UUID: 6DD3E1A2-7A70-41FC-917A-231C2C4E2E4E
     Wake-up Type: Power Switch
     SKU Number:
     Family:

Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 15 bytes
Base Board Information
     Manufacturer: Intel Corporation
     Product Name: NUC6i7KYB
     Version: H90766-405