2002-08-02 14:54:59

by Albert Cranford

Subject: [PATCH] 2.5.30 ARCH=i386 create dmi_scan.h and move decl from dmi_scan.c

Hello Linus,
Alan suggested that sensors group use a dmi scanner to
manage allow/blacklist products. In order to do this
we need to use arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c components.

Could you apply the following patch to facilitate this?
Its been tested in linux-2.5.30 with no negative impact on
kernel and may be useful for others.

Thanks,
Albert
--- linux/arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c.orig 2002-07-31 23:10:21.000000000 -0400
+++ linux/arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c 2002-07-31 23:13:52.000000000 -0400
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
#include <linux/pm.h>
#include <asm/keyboard.h>
#include <asm/system.h>
+#include <asm/dmi_scan.h>
#include <linux/bootmem.h>

unsigned long dmi_broken;
@@ -127,22 +128,7 @@
return -1;
}

-
-enum
-{
- DMI_BIOS_VENDOR,
- DMI_BIOS_VERSION,
- DMI_BIOS_DATE,
- DMI_SYS_VENDOR,
- DMI_PRODUCT_NAME,
- DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,
- DMI_BOARD_VENDOR,
- DMI_BOARD_NAME,
- DMI_BOARD_VERSION,
- DMI_STRING_MAX
-};
-
-static char *dmi_ident[DMI_STRING_MAX];
+char *dmi_ident[DMI_STRING_MAX];

/*
* Save a DMI string
--- /dev/null 1994-07-17 19:46:18.000000000 -0400
+++ linux/include/asm-i386/dmi_scan.h 2002-07-31 23:12:49.000000000 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+#ifndef __i386_DMI_SCAN_H
+#define __i386_DMI_SCAN_H
+enum
+{
+ DMI_BIOS_VENDOR,
+ DMI_BIOS_VERSION,
+ DMI_BIOS_DATE,
+ DMI_SYS_VENDOR,
+ DMI_PRODUCT_NAME,
+ DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,
+ DMI_BOARD_VENDOR,
+ DMI_BOARD_NAME,
+ DMI_BOARD_VERSION,
+ DMI_STRING_MAX
+};
+
+extern char *dmi_ident[DMI_STRING_MAX];
+
+#endif

--
Albert Cranford Deerfield Beach FL USA
[email protected]

2002-08-02 16:40:50

by Alan

Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.30 ARCH=i386 create dmi_scan.h and move decl from dmi_scan.c

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 15:58, Albert Cranford wrote:
> Hello Linus,
> Alan suggested that sensors group use a dmi scanner to
> manage allow/blacklist products. In order to do this
> we need to use arch/i386/kernel/dmi_scan.c components.
>
> Could you apply the following patch to facilitate this?
> Its been tested in linux-2.5.30 with no negative impact on
> kernel and may be useful for others.


Ok by me