linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] ASoC: topology: Improve backwards compatibility with v4 topology files

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]

Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 15:18:42 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Cc:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        "Patel, Chintan M" <chintan.m.patel@...el.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH] ASoC: topology: Improve backwards compatibility
 with v4 topology files

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:17:23AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:58 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > I'm saying we should move them there.  They're clearly part of the
> > userspace ABI and therefore belong in uapi, it was a mistake to let them
> > be elsewhere.

> They define a firmware file format. Not sure if I would call that userspace
> ABI.

It's a binary provided by userspace to the kernel, I'd say that's
clearly an ABI.

> I don't mind adding the structures to
> sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-tplg-interface.h,
> but it seems a bit out of scope to tie this with moving the file to
> include/uapi/sound.
> I think that should be a separate discussion.

Is there some reason not to just do it while we're looking at this?  I
don't see why we wouldn't want to do this.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)