On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:29:32AM +0100, Michael Karcher wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 07.01.2010, 10:30 +0100 schrieb Luc Verhaegen: > > I am just warning that dmi might not be as tight and enduring as many > > people think it is, and that therefor it should be used with some care. > > For the tightness, I completely agree: DMI/SMBIOS matching is only as > good as the strings the vendor provide. That's the same problem we have > with subsystem IDs. And of course if the vendor just ignores susbsystem > IDs, it is quite probable that it also doesn't care about DMI/SMBIOS > strings, see your Jetway example below. > > For the endurance, I think there will be no problem: The SMBIOS table > interface will be as enduring as non-EFI PC Biosses. There is no > end-of-life announcement for SMBIOS, and Windows (still in Windows 7) > uses SMBIOS to retrieve the system information presented WMI. BIOS > vendors will provide SMBIOS stuff because the brand customers need this > feature (they can't explain the business customers why their board name > doesn't appear in the WMI database), which means that even no-name > boards will get the SMBIOS table, but perhaps with useless entries, see > the tightness issue above. > > > Also, i own Jetway mini-itx boards for which dmi will not change a > > thing (but luckily, they do not require a board enable). > > Regards, > Michael Karcher >
Would have to fire up the jetways and verify whether it really us that empty. Luc Verhaegen. _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
