linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: atmel-classd: add the Audio Class D Amplifier code

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: <20150911103417.GF12027@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:34:17 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	"Wu, Songjun" <songjun.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	nicolas.ferre@...el.com, lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz,
	tiwai@...e.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
	pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: atmel-classd: add the Audio Class D Amplifier
 code

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:31:04AM +0800, Wu, Songjun wrote:
> On 9/9/2015 17:52, Mark Brown wrote:

> >Yes, that's what's going to end up happening but it's not how controls
> >are expected to behave - applications will expect changing one control
> >to leave others unaffected so it's better to return an error rather than
> >change the other control.

> If application change non EQ controls, the others will be unaffected. But
> the classD IP can only supports one EQ control at once, these three EQ
> controls point to the same register field, if application set a different EQ
> control, the error occurs, there will be many errors, it's not very
> reasonable to application. The best way I think is if application set one EQ
> control, the other EQ controls will change to 0dB, it's also consistent with
> fact.

There's no really good solutions here - this is why my initial
suggestion was to have a single enumerated control.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)