linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] ASoC: tlv320aic31xx: Remove platform data

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: <10f1b19b-4a0a-e336-b757-933d46b5c8e9@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2017 10:19:28 -0600
From:   "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] ASoC: tlv320aic31xx: Remove platform data

On 12/06/2017 06:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 03:20:19PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> On 12/01/2017 07:26 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> The advantage being...?  Not all architectures use DT or ACPI so it's
>>> not clear that this is a step forwards in itself.
> 
>> Simplifies the code in several places, and you don't need to use DT or
>> ACPI, it probes just fine anyway you normally add an I2C device.
> 
>> All we are dropping here is the platform_data way of specifying mic-bias
>> voltage, which if you are wanting to do that in an out-of-tree board
>> file, then I'm sure you can locally modify this driver to use your
>> wanted voltage setting by default.
> 
> Then if you want to upstream the driver you'll have to add the platform
> data support again.  Like I say not all architectures have anything
> other than board files.
> 

Then they can try, but they will rightfully get nack'd and told to stop
using board files and use DT/ACPI. Most upstream architectures don't use
board files anymore anyway, so I doubt this will ever happen.

Besides, if they haven't upstreamed their code then it is their problem
if this patch breaks them, we shouldn't hold up upstream work for
out-of-tree code, especially theoretical out-of-tree code that will
never exist.