[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210310181611.GE28564@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 18:16:11 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ASoC: soc-core: Prevent warning if no DMI table is
present
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:50:13AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 3/10/21 10:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Build time dependencies aren't going to help anything, arm64 (and to my
> > understanding some future x86 systems, LynxPoint IIRC) supports both DT
> > and ACPI and so you have kernels built with support for both.
> well, that's what I suggested initially:
> if (is_of_node(card->dev->fwnode))
> I used the of_node test as a proxy for 'no DMI' since I am not aware of any
> means to detect if DMI is enabled at run-time.
Can we not fix the DMI code so it lets us check dmi_available either
directly or with an accessor? I don't understand why all the proposals
are dancing around local bodges here.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists