From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Liam Girdwood Subject: Re: snd_soc_set_dmi_name - Shouldn't it use SYS_VENDOR? Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:35:01 +0100 Message-ID: <1493375701.2540.53.camel@loki> References: <5aa36e3b-49f9-d7f6-df58-18dcfcda08e5@linux.intel.com> <7dbec345-e058-18ca-b4b3-e071fbc08fb0@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630FA267335 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:35:06 +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: "Lin, Mengdong" , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Pierre-Louis Bossart List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 15:02 -0600, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart > 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