linux-kernel - Re: [RESENDING] [PATCH 07/22] ASoC: Ux500: Initialise PCM from MSP probe rather than as a device

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]

Message-ID: <20121123015838.GH4385@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:58:39 +0900
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Ola Lilja <ola.o.lilja@...ricsson.com>,
	"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	Linus WALLEIJ <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	STEricsson_nomadik_linux <STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com>
Subject: Re: [RESENDING] [PATCH 07/22] ASoC: Ux500: Initialise PCM from MSP
 probe rather than as a device

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 02:05:40PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Lee Jones wrote:

> > > > Can we have some closure on this patch please, as it's blocking the
> > > > patch-set? I'm fairly sure the patch is doing the correct thing, as
> > > > seconded by Mark.

> > > I still don't like this. It is the dai_link-struct that bothers me. We have
> > > "ux500-msp-i2s.1" as name of the platform AND the cpu_dai. The MSP I2S-block is
> > > not the platform and it is certainly not both platform and cpu-DAI at the same time.
> > > Mark: Did you have a solution for this? Couldn't we just put NULL on the
> > > platform_name instead?

> > There are other drivers which do this already. 

> > I don't think it's an issue to do this.

> Has anyone had any more bright ideas on how we might handle this?

> The device is still being handled in platform code and I'm desperate
> to get it out of there.

Why do we need any ideas?  Just implement it already.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)