27 Apr
2017
27 Apr
'17
11:02 p.m.
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.
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.
Daniel