Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / x86: Work around broken XSDT on Advantech
 DAC-BJ01 board
From:   Mark Cilissen <mark@yotsuba.nl>
In-Reply-To: <832a5b2e-d70c-f1a6-e377-7697b1eb7049@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 21:20:42 +0100
Cc:     linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7BD8A71A-95C7-4A10-82FD-BEAAE0B0DDE9@yotsuba.nl>
References: <20220302040800.10355-1-mark@yotsuba.nl>
 <832a5b2e-d70c-f1a6-e377-7697b1eb7049@redhat.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

> On 2 Mar 4 Reiwa, at 10:02, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>=20
> Hi,

Hi Hans,

>=20
>> [=E2=80=A6]
>=20
> Heh, I should have noticed this new version before replying. I see =
that
> you've dropped the BIOS-date match. But that actually is often more =
useful
> then the BIOS_VERSION, sometimes vendors don't bump the version when
> doing a new BIOS build.
>=20
> If you only want to match the exact BIOS you tested against I would
> drop the BIOS_VENDOR check instead.

I am admittedly bit wary of dropping the BIOS_VENDOR check. As the cause =
of
this issue seems to be specifically a BIOS compilation error, it feels=20=

incomplete to leave this match out.

Since =E2=80=9CCRB=E2=80=9D in the DMI product name indicates the board =
design is derivative
of a generic Intel reference design (=E2=80=9CCustomer Reference =
Board=E2=80=9D),
maybe it=E2=80=99s better to drop the SYS_VENDOR match instead?
It seems to bear little relation to the actual vendor (Advantech)
encountered in my testing hardware, anyway.

Let me know; if you still feel it=E2=80=99s better to drop the =
BIOS_VENDOR match,
I will do that instead.

> Regards,
>=20
> Hans

Thanks and regards,

Mark