On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:54:51PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:09:40 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:29:26AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. > > > > > > On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:25:12 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > Sometimes it is more convenient to be able to match a whole family of > > > > products, like in case of bunch of Chromebooks based on Intel_Strago to > > > > apply a driver quirk instead of quirking each machine one-by-one. > > > > > > > > This adds support for DMI_PRODUCT_FAMILY identification string and also > > > > exports it to the userspace through sysfs attribute just like the > > > > existing ones. > > > > > > dmidecode currently provides no direct access to this string. Do you > > > think it should? > > > > Yeah, why not. I always just run "dmidecode" without any arguments and > > that field is printed nicely among others :) > > Correct. But I know many people out there use option -s for various > purposes.
OK, I can send a patch adding it there. > > > > (...) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi-id.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi-id.c > > > > index 44c01390d035..dc269cb288c2 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi-id.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi-id.c > > > > (...) > > > > @@ -191,6 +192,7 @@ static void __init dmi_id_init_attr_table(void) > > > > ADD_DMI_ATTR(product_version, DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION); > > > > ADD_DMI_ATTR(product_serial, DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL); > > > > ADD_DMI_ATTR(product_uuid, DMI_PRODUCT_UUID); > > > > + ADD_DMI_ATTR(product_family, DMI_PRODUCT_FAMILY); > > > > > > Alignment, please! > > > > The patch is already applied and I suppose merged in v4.12-rc3+. Should > > I send a fixup patch to fix this? > > I will do it, no worry. > > > > > ADD_DMI_ATTR(board_vendor, DMI_BOARD_VENDOR); > > > > ADD_DMI_ATTR(board_name, DMI_BOARD_NAME); > > > > ADD_DMI_ATTR(board_version, DMI_BOARD_VERSION); > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > > > > index 54be60ead08f..93f7acdaac7a 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c > > > > @@ -430,6 +430,7 @@ static void __init dmi_decode(const struct > > > > dmi_header *dm, void *dummy) > > > > dmi_save_ident(dm, DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION, 6); > > > > dmi_save_ident(dm, DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL, 7); > > > > dmi_save_uuid(dm, DMI_PRODUCT_UUID, 8); > > > > + dmi_save_ident(dm, DMI_PRODUCT_FAMILY, 26); > > > > > > This field only exists since SMBIOS 2.4. For older implementations, you > > > are accessing a random location of the DMI table. Most likely you'll > > > hit a character in one of the strings associated with the system > > > information structure. In turn this character will be interpreted as a > > > DMI string number. With some luck, number will be >= 32, so you'll get > > > a non-existent string and dmi_string will return "". But you could hit > > > a string terminator (0) and return the 1st string of the structure > > > instead (most likely the system manufacturer.) > > > > > > Note that the problem is not specific to this field, it is just more > > > likely to break because all other fields are defined by SMBIOS 2.0, or > > > for the product UUID, SMBIOS 2.1. The fact that all dmi_save_* > > > functions blindly assume that the structure is long enough to contain > > > all the fields they want to save is problematic. This should be fixed > > > separately. > > > > I see. Since you are more familiar with the DMI code, do you have time > > to do that or should I try? > > I'm already working on it. Thanks!