linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Add CFL-S support

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: <s5hh8gaaxdm.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 23:17:41 +0100
From:   Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, broonie@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
        liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] ASoC: Intel: Skylake: Add CFL-S support

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:38:41 +0100,
Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:16:50AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > On 11/21/18 8:27 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > > May you consider to switch to PCI_DEVICE_DATA() first?
> > 
> > Is this really the recommended path?
> > 
> > The macro generates PCI_DEVICE_ID_##vend##_##dev, and I don't have a turn
> > key #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_AUDIO_CFL 0xa348 I can use. In a number of
> > cases we have multiple variants of the same hardware, and it starts being
> > painful to use a 20-letter macro to differentiate between INTEL_AUDIO_CFL_Y
> > and INTEL_AUDIO_CFL_H. The explicit code and a short comment are more
> > readable really.
> > 
> > git grep PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL gives me hundreds of definitions, some global,
> > some local to specific drivers, doesn't seem like there is a well-agreed
> > usage of this macro, is there? I don't mind making the change but I don't
> > sense an strong argument for it?
> 
> Compare:
> 
> 	/* CFL */
> 	{ PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0xa348),
> 		.driver_data = (unsigned long)&snd_soc_acpi_intel_cnl_machines},
> 
> to something like:
> 
> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_AUDIO_CFL	0xa348
> ...
> 
> 	{PCI_DEVICE_DATA(INTEL, AUDIO_CFL, &snd_soc_acpi_intel_cnl_machines)},

The former gives a better grep-ability, though.

I have no big preference over two, just want to mention that both have
merits and demerits.


thanks,

Takashi