From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751138AbdFAMnA (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 08:43:00 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40421 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750952AbdFAMm6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 08:42:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:42:54 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Mika Westerberg Cc: Linus Walleij , Heikki Krogerus , Andy Shevchenko , Dmitry Torokhov , Wei Yongjun , bbaude@redhat.com, mildred-bug.kernel@mildred.fr, barnacs@justletit.be, lvuksta@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Kelly French Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] firmware: dmi: Add DMI_PRODUCT_FAMILY identification string Message-ID: <20170601144254.142be515@endymion> In-Reply-To: <20170517102514.89744-2-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> References: <20170517102514.89744-1-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20170517102514.89744-2-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> Organization: SUSE Linux X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I did not notice before, but now that I'm testing... On Wed, 17 May 2017 13:25:12 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > --- a/drivers/firmware/dmi-id.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/dmi-id.c > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(product_name, 0444, DMI_PRODUCT_NAME); > DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(product_version, 0444, DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION); > DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(product_serial, 0400, DMI_PRODUCT_SERIAL); > DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(product_uuid, 0400, DMI_PRODUCT_UUID); > +DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(product_family, 0400, DMI_PRODUCT_FAMILY); > DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(board_vendor, 0444, DMI_BOARD_VENDOR); > DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(board_name, 0444, DMI_BOARD_NAME); > DEFINE_DMI_ATTR_WITH_SHOW(board_version, 0444, DMI_BOARD_VERSION); I see no reason to hide this field from users. Permissions 0444 would seem more appropriate. I'll include that change in my patch if there are no objections. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support