From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751255Ab1GSNkO (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:40:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12273 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751105Ab1GSNkM (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4E25892C.8070102@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:39:56 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100505 Fedora/3.0.4-2.el6 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org CC: Andi Kleen , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/34] System Firmware Interface References: <1310994528-26276-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <1310994528-26276-2-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <20110719100544.55c7f7fb@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20110719132157.GG8006@one.firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <20110719132157.GG8006@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/19/2011 09:21 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:05:44AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >>> Could you expand somewhat WHY you want this. What is wrong with the >>> current code? >>> >> See the previous discussions >> > Ok I will put that now as description into all my code submissions @) > > Seriously, that REALLY belongs into a patch description. > I can certainly do that on the next version. Sorry about that Andi. > >> >>> As for user space access on x86 "dmidecode"/libdmi works for nearly everyone, >>> doesn't it? >>> >> "on x86" (and on PC only generally) >> >> There are three core problems >> >> 1. DMI in this sense is basically an x86 PC class device hack >> 2. It is obsoleted and at some point it'll vanish even on PC >> > Huh? What obsoleted it? > > The DMI specification has not been updated since January of 2003. It has been replaced by SMBIOS. >> 3. Every other platform without DMI would benefit from the >> interface being generic >> > Can you expand on that? The information will be always system > specific anyways. Do you really think there's that much commonality? > > There seems to be some commonalities. We have other arches checking for model and vendor info. P.