lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] ASoC: soc-core: Prevent warning if no DMI table is present
From
Date

On 10/03/2021 18:37, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>>>> Build time dependencies aren't going to help anything, arm64 (and to my
>>>> understanding some future x86 systems, LynxPoint IIRC) supports both DT
>>>> and ACPI and so you have kernels built with support for both.
>>
>>> well, that's what I suggested initially:
>>>         if (is_of_node(card->dev->fwnode))
>>
>>> I used the of_node test as a proxy for 'no DMI' since I am not aware
>>> of any
>>> means to detect if DMI is enabled at run-time.
>>
>> Can we not fix the DMI code so it lets us check dmi_available either
>> directly or with an accessor?  I don't understand why all the proposals
>> are dancing around local bodges here.
>
> something like this then (compile-tested only)?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> index d51ca0428bb8..f191a1f901ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c
> @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ static int __init dmi_checksum(const u8 *buf, u8 len)
>  static const char *dmi_ident[DMI_STRING_MAX];
>  static LIST_HEAD(dmi_devices);
>  int dmi_available;
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dmi_available);
>
>  /*
>   *     Save a DMI string
> diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> index 16ba54eb8164..c7e4600b2dd4 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c
> @@ -1574,7 +1574,7 @@ int snd_soc_set_dmi_name(struct snd_soc_card
> *card, const char *flavour)
>         if (card->long_name)
>                 return 0; /* long name already set by driver or from DMI */
>
> -       if (!is_acpi_device_node(card->dev->fwnode))
> +       if (!dmi_available)
>                 return 0;
>
>         /* make up dmi long name as: vendor-product-version-board */


Sounds good to me. I would have done the same if I had known that the
current solution would have caused this regression.

Cheers
Jon

--
nvpublic

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-10 20:18    [W:0.051 / U:1.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site