linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 6/7] ASoC: Intel: boards: align Kconfig configurations for HiFi2

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: <cc11a11c-9bdf-6df5-f48b-07cfa1ddcbcd@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:27:19 -0600
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc:     arnd@...db.de, tiwai@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com, vinod.koul@...el.com,
        broonie@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 6/7] ASoC: Intel: boards: align Kconfig
 configurations for HiFi2



On 11/18/2017 11:08 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 18:02 -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> Make sure all the configs are aligned
>> Also add the missing dependencies on SOC_ACPI stuff used to fix
>> DAI names based on HID.
>>
>> FIXME: not sure why X86_INTEL_LPSS is needed in a machine
>> driver config, should it be back to X86 everywhere?
>>
> X86_INTEL_LPSS makes sense only for Haswell, Broadwell, BayTrail and
> CherryTrail (more precisely for PCH inside those SoCs).
>
> Basically it enables few peripheral drivers in case they are enumerated
> via ACPI (SPI, I2C, UART, PWM, SDHCI) on SoCs listed above.
>
> Hope this would help how to deal with the option in ASoC case.
>
Yes, and my proposal would be to move this dependency where applicable 
in the sound/soc/intel Kconfig. the board-level dependency should only 
be I2C or SPI - or both in some cases, there is no reason to have 
something SoC-dependent at the machine level, and those cases would be 
filtered out anyway.