Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <43b0c275-e728-492b-c6a7-d054fae72117@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Mar 2022 14:38:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI / x86: Work around broken XSDT on Advantech
 DAC-BJ01 board
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mark Cilissen <mark@yotsuba.nl>
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>
References: <20220302040800.10355-1-mark@yotsuba.nl>
 <832a5b2e-d70c-f1a6-e377-7697b1eb7049@redhat.com>
 <7BD8A71A-95C7-4A10-82FD-BEAAE0B0DDE9@yotsuba.nl>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <7BD8A71A-95C7-4A10-82FD-BEAAE0B0DDE9@yotsuba.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Mark,

On 3/2/22 21:20, Mark Cilissen wrote:
>> On 2 Mar 4 Reiwa, at 10:02, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
> 
> Hi Hans,
> 
>>
>>> […]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 
> incomplete to leave this match out.
> 
> Since “CRB” in the DMI product name indicates the board design is derivative
> of a generic Intel reference design (“Customer Reference Board”),
> maybe it’s 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’s better to drop the BIOS_VENDOR match,
> I will do that instead.

I think that there are a lot more boards that will have
DMI_BIOS_VENDOR == "Phoenix Technologies LTD"
then that there are boards that will have
DMI_PRODUCT_NAME == "Bearlake CRB Board"

So if you want to make the DMI match as specific as possible then
IMHO dropping the bios-vendor match is best.

Regards,

Hans