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: <s5hd0xlnzwz.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Thu, 24 May 2018 11:52:44 +0200
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        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, 23 May 2018 18:17:23 +0200,
Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:58 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:54:18AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:56 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:54:54PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > > > > And I'm wondering whether we should move these definitions to uapi
> > > > > headers.
> 
> > > > Yes, we should.
> 
> > > Are you sure ? They used to be in
> > >  sound/soc/intel/skylake/skl-tplg-interface.h.
> > > I took my clue from sound/soc/soc-topology.c, where the v4 structures
> are
> > > also
> > > declared locally and not in the uapi files.
> 
> > 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.

The point is that the defined data is used from both kernel and user
space.  Although strictly speaking it might be no "ABI", it'd make
sense a lot to put the stuff into uapi directory, so that the kernel
can expose it properly and user-space can refer it as the single
source.

> 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.

Yes, it should be done by another patch.


thanks,

Takashi