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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190418191708.GA14885@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:17:09 -0700 From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com> To: "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@....com> Cc: "timur@...nel.org" <timur@...nel.org>, "Xiubo.Lee@...il.com" <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>, "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>, "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>, "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ASoC: fsl_asrc: replace the process_option table with function On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:37:06AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote: > > > > And this is according to IMX6DQRM: > > > > Limited support for the case when output sampling rates is > > > > between 8kHz and 30kHz. The limitation is the supported ratio > > > > (Fsin/Fsout) range as between 1/24 to 8 > > > > > > > > This should cover your 8.125 condition already, even if having an > > > > outrate range between [8KHz, 30KHz] check, since an outrate above > > > > 30KHz will not have an inrate bigger than 8.125 times of it, given > > > > the maximum input rate is 192KHz. > > > > > > > > So I think that we can just drop that 8.125 condition from your > > > > change and there's no need to error out any more. > > > > > > > No, if outrate=8kHz, inrate > 88.2kHz, these cases are not supported. > > > This is not covered by > > > > > > if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) && > > > (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) { > > > > Good catch. The range should be [8KHz, 30KHz] vs. (8KHz, 32KHz) in the > > code. Then I think the fix should be at both lines: > > > > - if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) && > > - (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) { > > + if ((outrate >= 8000 && outrate =< 30000) && > > + (outrate > 24 * inrate || inrate > 8 * outrate)) { > > > > Overall, I think we should fix this instead of adding an extra one, since it is > > very likely saying the same thing. > > Actually if outrate < 8kHz, there will be issue too. Here is the thing, the RM doesn't explicitly state that ASRC can support a lower output sample rate than 8KHz. And I actually had a concern when reviewing your PATCH-2, as the table of supported output sample rate no longer matches RM. If you've verified a lower output sample rate working solid with the process_option function, that means our driver can go beyond the limitation mentioned in the RM, then I believe [8KHz, 32KHz] should be updated too -- that says we can do: - if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) && - (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) { + if ((outrate >= 5512 && outrate =< 30000) && + (outrate > 24 * inrate || inrate > 8 * outrate)) { Actually "ourate > 24 * inrate" is kind of pointless for range [5KHz, 32KHz] but we can keep it since it matches RM.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists