Hi Andy,
On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:54:17PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 08:30:03AM +0000, Dan Scally wrote:
> > On 30/11/2020 20:07, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > >> +static struct int3472_sensor_regulator_map int3472_sensor_regulator_maps[] = {
> > >> + { "GNDF140809R", 2, miix_510_ov2680 },
> > >> + { "YHCU", 2, surface_go2_ov5693 },
> > >> + { "MSHW0070", 2, surface_book_ov5693 },
> > >> +};
> > >
> > > Hmm... Usual way is to use DMI for that. I'm not sure above will not give us
> > > false positive matches.
> >
> > I considered DMI too, no problem to switch to that if it's a better choice.
>
> I prefer DMI as it's a standard way to describe platform quirks in x86 world.
Do you think the Windows driver would use DMI ? That seems quite
unlikely to me, given how they would have to release a new driver binary
for every machine. I'm pretty sure that a different mechanism is used to
identify camera integration, and I think it would make sense to follow
the same approach. That would allow us to avoid large tables of DMI
identifiers that would need to be constently updated, potentially making
user experience better.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
