linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dwc: disallow building designware

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: <03a3fbbb-7221-f4ee-5b1b-8fff518ea82c@synopsys.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:48:15 +0100
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>,
        Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dwc: disallow building designware_pcm as a module



On 19-04-2017 17:14, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 17:12 +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>> Hi Lubomir,
>>
>>
>> On 18-04-2017 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:13:30PM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think designware_pcm is a separate driver. It looks
>>>> tightly
>>>> coupled with designware_i2s: you can either disable
>>>> designware_pcm
>>>> altogether at build time or always load it together with
>>>> designware_i2s.
>>> Yes, they're closely coupled but we might still want them both as a
>>> module.
>> Thanks for the patch but I agree with Mark.
>>
>> For the record you can add "MODULE_LICENSE(“Dual MIT/GPL”)".
> Sorry if I'm missing something; but I still fail to understand why is
> that a good idea.
>
> What is the point of having a pair of modules that depend on each other
> and can only be loaded together?

Sorry, I don't know why but I was thinking that PCM module will
not load when we have a DMA platform but indeed it will load the
module because of the dependencies, even though the register
function will never be called. Without this I don't really have
anything against the patch.

What do you think Mark? If you want to keep the PCM as a module
then we will need to abstract this more, by reducing the
dependencies.

Best regards,
Jose Miguel Abreu

>
>> Best regards,
>> Jose Miguel Abreu
> Lubo