linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Fix Intel audio Kconfig issues

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: <s5ho9o07xbr.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Sat, 18 Nov 2017 10:25:28 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, broonie@...nel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, vinod.koul@...el.com,
        liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Fix Intel audio Kconfig issues

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:01:55 +0100,
Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
> At the risk of being scolded for the third time in two days by
> Linux overlords (no hard feelings), here's an attempt to clean
> things up.
> 
> The first patch *should* implement what Linus, Takashi and Mark
> tried to explain by email. There should be no functionality change
> and could be merged if deemed ok.
> 
> The rest of the patch series does a more in-depth cleanup and should not
> be merged without more testing (hence the RFC).
> 
> The 4th patch is really the most important one, there were nested
> configs which made no sense to me. I don't know the history which led
> to such complicated stuff but simpler is better.
> 
> The last 3 patches are just clean-ups of the machine driver configs,
> for some reason there is no consistency in the settings so I tried to
> apply common sense. There might be additional cleanup needed since I
> don't really get why we need references to LPSS or DESIGNWARE for things
> which are not visible to a machine driver, we should only depend on IC2 or
> SPI in my opinion - depending on what the control interface is.
> 
> I tried to keep things to a minimum in each patch to make the reviews
> easier, if people want them squashed that's fine by me.
> 
> I'll do some more testing on my side but I could use feedback. Thanks!

FYI, I've put these to a test branch, test/asoc-intel-kconfig, so that
0day bot can catch issues.  Let's see.


thanks,

Takashi