linux-kernel - Re: Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc?

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]

Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:53:17 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Jie Yang <yang.jie@...el.com>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc?

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:31:27PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 8/11/16 3:42 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:

> > which changed the dependencies for CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH.
> > The set of options Fedora selects means that
> > CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH
> > can't be selected. Is there another driver that's supposed to replace
> > CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH on Bay Trail or do the dependencies
> > need to be updated? The bugzilla has alsa-info for working and non-
> > working cases and the Fedora config is attached.

> If you remove support for all other baytrail options this driver should
> still be there and selectable. We just can't support both this driver for
> Chromebooks and the rest for other machines with the same distribution at
> the moment.

That sounds like a regression, what's the plan to fix it.

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