From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre-Louis Bossart Subject: Re: snd_soc_set_dmi_name - Shouldn't it use SYS_VENDOR? Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:32:31 -0500 Message-ID: <7dbec345-e058-18ca-b4b3-e071fbc08fb0@linux.intel.com> References: <5aa36e3b-49f9-d7f6-df58-18dcfcda08e5@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14174266C0A for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:32:33 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Daniel Drake Cc: liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com, "Lin, Mengdong" , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 04/27/2017 03:13 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart > 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