[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5781c7dd-c19d-7664-4022-6e86e405f0f5@criteo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:05:37 +0000
From: Erwan Velu <e.velu@...teo.com>
To: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>,
Erwan Velu <erwanaliasr1@...il.com>
CC: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...shcourse.ca>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Changbin Du <changbin.du@...el.com>,
Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Mattias Jacobsson <2pi@....nu>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
"linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] firmware/dmi: Report DMI Bios release
On 21/10/2019 16:53, Jean Delvare wrote:
> This would also be in line with how it was implemented in dmidecode. Is
> there any reason to NOT go that route?
The main reason was I though it would be easier to compare releases by
splitting major & minor.
That is probably overkill, so I'll stick to the usual way to represent a
release in V2.
Thanks for the review,
Erwan,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists