On 10/01/2011 01:32 PM, Sascha Silbe wrote:
Excerpts from Paul Fox's message of 2011-09-29 14:38:35 +0200:
yes, it would be much better to centralize this -- we'll certainly be
going through this again in the future. please use olpc-hwinfo from
sugar, if possible.
Since we're talking about a few lines of code only, I'd prefer the code
duplication over having to depend on a vendor package. Especially since
device tree is cross-platform (in the hardware sense), so the same code
would work on more than just XOs.
Sascha
Thanks for all the comments!
After another discussion with Daniel I made the patch hardware
independent [1].
"As the firmware version we display the bios version if available on non
XO hardware. As ethtool has become a depedency of Sugar we can now
display the wireless firmware as well on all hardwares.
The serial number is often only readable by root on non-XO
hardware. If the serial number can not be found on an XO we hide
that part of the section."
For the future I think we can enhance the section. For example I think
it makes sense to display the wireless driver (e.g. iwl3945) as well
when displaying the wireless firmware version. As well it would be nice
to display the model in the identity section. This can be done hardware
independent as well with the usage of /sys/class/dmi/id/product_version
and /sys/class/dmi/id/product_name (see [2]).
Regards,
Simon
[1] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/2011-October/033714.html
[2] http://dev.laptop.org/attachment/ticket/11232/11232-fix.png
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
