> -----Original Message----- > From: alsa-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alsa-devel- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lin, Mengdong > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:03 PM > > > > 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 :-) I just submitted a patch to fix this http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2017-April/120271.html It passed building and I will test it next Tuesday. 3 Intel machines may have null DMI_SYS_VENDOR. Thanks Mengdong _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
