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: <s5hwp2jtv4z.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:10:52 +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 10:25:28 +0100,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> 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.

No news is a good news, it seems that your patchset doesn't break
builds, at least.  Let's go ahead!


Takashi