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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
