Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: soc-core: Prevent warning if no DMI table is
 present
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
CC:     <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>, <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210302092712.310705-1-jonathanh@nvidia.com>
 <20210302124913.GC4522@sirena.org.uk> <s5hr1kxeah4.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <806466c4-4ef2-f4ba-3609-81b862810185@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:50:56 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <s5hr1kxeah4.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 02/03/2021 17:23, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 13:49:13 +0100,
> Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 09:27:12AM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> Many systems do not provide a DMI table and on these systems a warning,
>>> such as the following, is printed on boot ...
>>>
>>>  WARNING KERN tegra-audio-graph-card sound: ASoC: no DMI vendor name!
>>>
>>> If DMI support is enabled in the kernel, there is no simple way to
>>> detect if a DMI table is table or not. Note that the variable
>>> 'dmi_available' is not exported and so cannot be used by kernel modules.
>>
>> We could fix that, or provide an accessor function?  Or only warn if
>> we're on an ACPI system (which we can check from a module).  This really
>> does feel like something we should be warning about on systems that are
>> supposed to have DMI information available as standard.
> 
> I had the same feeling when I took a look at the patch, but later
> changed mind, since the error will pop up also if a system has an
> unmatured BIOS with some bogus vendor DMI string, too.  That is, users
> of such a machine gets always an error message although this isn't any
> serious problem unless you need a dedicated UCM profile (which can't
> be used on such a system in anyway).
> 
> So, I agree that exporting dmi_avilable could improve the situation a
> bit, but the error level needs still reconsideration.


Thanks for the feedback. Yes it is probably better if we have a specific
test. I will send out a V2 for review.

Thanks
Jon

-- 
nvpublic