On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:33:39 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I would assume that no BIOS date is related to prehistoric firmwares and > > using _CRS would sound weird on them. > > Careful here. > > You seem to be assuming that the DMI information is always valid > and/or complete which is know to not be the case sometimes. True. While the BIOS date is not the worst offender when it comes to broken DMI data, you must remember that the date comes as a string, and older SMBIOS specifications did not even recommend a specific format for that string. As a matter of fact, my collection of DMI tables includes a few creative samples like "Jul 7 2016" or "09-16-08" which the kernel fails to parse. So the default behavior at the driver level shouldn't be based on what older systems are most likely to enjoy. The default behavior must be the safest option, regardless of the age of the system. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
