linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] ASoC: wm9713: add binding for WM9713 codec

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: <87povkuuf6.fsf@belgarion.home>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:33:49 +0100
From:	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ASoC: wm9713: add binding for WM9713 codec

Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> writes:

>> > It will eumerate the AC'97 bus by itself and does not need the CODEC to
>> > be described.
>
>> I think I still don't get it.
>
>> So let's rephrase it another way : how will the function wm9713_probe() be
>> called, ie. what is the possible function backtrace leading to that call ?
>
> It will not be called, the generic AC'97 code will be used.

Ok, if it's not called no code in sound/soc/codecs/wm9713.c will be used, right
?
In that case wm9713_set_dai_clkdiv() will never be used, nor will the
wm9713_audio_map or wm9713_dapm_widgets be created, which will break all
userspace programs relying on these mixers and DAPM routes.

Or am I missing something ?

>> Do you have a devicetree example somewhere, with (ac97 host, audio codec) pair I
>> can have a look at to understand ?
>
> Some Atmel boards do this IIRC, as does the AACI driver (via AMBA but
> same effect).
I suppose you mean sound/arm/aaci.c, which is more a platform_data like driver
(if I understood the integrator code correctly).

I suppose we can achieve comparable result with sound/arm/pxa2xx-ac97.c, but as
to know if the functionality will be comparable to sound/soc/pxa/pxa2xx-ac97.c,
it's hard to say. If I count the DMA requestors, I see 5 in the sound/soc
version, and 2 in sound/arm.

That makes me believe the sound/arm version is inferior.

Cheers.

-- 
Robert