linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] sound: soc: pxa: Suppress SND_MMP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:24:13 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@...e.de>
Cc:     "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        <info@...romedabox.org>, "Robert Jarzmik" <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        "Eric Miao" <eric.y.miao@...il.com>,
        "Haojian Zhuang" <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
        "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@...ex.cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Daniel Mack" <daniel@...que.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] sound: soc: pxa: Suppress SND_MMP_SOC for arm64

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:11:46 +0100,
Andreas Färber wrote:
> 
> Am 22.02.2017 um 19:47 schrieb Mark Brown:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 03:29:24AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > 
> > This is patch 4 of 8, what's going on with dependencies here?
> 
> No dependencies on previous patches. 5/8 adds ARCH_MMP to arm64.
> 
> It compiled without this (just Kconfig warnings), so this could go
> through the appropriate sound tree as a cleanup.
> 
> > Please use subject lines matching the style for the subsystem.  This
> > makes it easier for people to identify relevant patches.
> 
> Should I make it "ASoC: pxa: ..." then? SND_MMP_SOC selects SND_ARM,
> which in sound/arm/Kconfig says 'Drivers that are implemented on ASoC
> can be found in "ALSA for SoC audio support" section.', which confused
> me about whether or not this is an ASoC compliant driver if it selects a
> non-ASoC symbol.

It's a bug that selects SND_ARM there.  I guess this was wrongly taken
from the old example of AC97 ARM SoC code, which was fixed later.
ASoC stuff is basically irrelevant from the legacy sound/arm/*.


thanks,

Takashi