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: <55F66A5A.7010502@atmel.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:34:02 +0800
From:	"Wu, Songjun" <songjun.wu@...el.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 9/11/2015 18:34, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.
>
You are right, your suggestion is reasonable, to have a single 
enumerated control. The second version will be made and sent soon.
--
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/