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]

Message-ID: <20180524151137.GY4828@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 16:11:37 +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 Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:55:06AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 7:18 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

Your mail client formatting seems to be broken, the word wrapping is
really funky (it looks like it's breaking longer than 80 column lines in
the middle of paragraphs rather than flowing paragraphs within 80
columns).

> > > 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.

> I don't mind doing this. However, keeping the change local and in a single
> patch
> would make it easier to backport, and I think that the ability to backport
> would be
> essential to get more than one-person test coverage. I also would have liked
> feedback from someone at Intel, at least for the Skylake specific
> structures.

Oh, of course - I'm just saying we should do this, not that everything
needs to be in one patch.  Obviously the code motion would be a separate
patch.

> Anyway, what file do you have in mind for the structure definitions, both
> for the ones
> in soc-tolopogy.c and the ones needed in skl-topology.c ? Everything into
> asoc.h,
> or something else ?

All of those that can appear in a firmware file, I don't super care
where they end up but possibly a separate header file or files to the
kernel specific ones as they might get used with Windows.

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