On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 20:21 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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. Yep. And here is a very good question which path is more safer: use _CRS, or not? Rafael, do you know any consequences of not using _CRS for PCI on older and newer machines? -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- 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
