-----Original Message----- From: Liam Girdwood [mailto:liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 6:35 PM To: Daniel Drake drake@endlessm.com Cc: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com; alsa- devel@alsa-project.org; Lin, Mengdong mengdong.lin@intel.com Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] snd_soc_set_dmi_name - Shouldn't it use SYS_VENDOR?
On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 15:02 -0600, Daniel Drake wrote:
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.
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.
Yes, it’s better to only use one name. Otherwise, it's possible to exceed 80 characters limit for the card long name since sometimes DMI fields can be long.
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.
I will fix this early next week after double checking my machines on hand. Daniel's database is much larger than my test set and so we need to support :-)
Thanks Mengdong