[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55647D25.80807@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 16:03:17 +0200
From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
CC: "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Matt Reimer <mreimer@...systems.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: codecs: use SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_* for format bitmask
Hello Takashi,
W dniu 26.05.2015 07:29, Takashi Iwai pisze:
> At Sat, 23 May 2015 18:32:29 +0200,
> Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>
>> snd_soc_pcm_stream.formats is a bitmask of SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_*,
>> not of SNDRV_PCM_FORMAT_* (which are sequential integers),
>> however some of ASoC CODEC drivers use these values instead.
>>
>> Found out by sparse on 0-day kernel tester.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
>
> Wow, that made me wonder how these drivers could actually work.
Maybe, by coincidence, the wrong defines contained enough bits
set to actually select some common, working format with their
controllers?
> BTW, how did you detect it? Any static analyzer like sparse or
> smatch? sparse didn't detect it at the last time I tried, IIRC...
I've received an e-mail from "kbuild test robot" at
"0-DAY kernel test infrastructure" that automated testing there
using sparse found this issue on wm9713 and stac9766 CODECs.
The exact warning was:
>> sound/soc/codecs/stac9766.c:324:28: sparse: incorrect type in initializer (different base types)
sound/soc/codecs/stac9766.c:324:28: expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [usertype] formats
sound/soc/codecs/stac9766.c:324:28: got restricted snd_pcm_format_t [usertype] <noident>
What is important the warning doesn't show unless a check build
is made with CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ .
Upon checking I've found the same issue also in two other CODECs,
which aren't normally being built on x86_64 (target architecture
for above automated build) even when SND_SOC_ALL_CODECS is selected.
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
Best regards,
Maciej Szmigiero
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists