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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 03:34:36 +0000
From:   "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@....com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.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 V5 2/3] ASoC: fsl_asrc: replace the process_option table
 with function

Hi

> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 03:15:34AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 02:32:35AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > > > When we want to support more sample rate, for example
> 12kHz/24kHz
> > > we
> > > > need update the process_option table, if we want to support more
> > > > sample rate next time, the table need to be updated again. which
> > > > is not flexible.
> > > >
> > > > We got a function fsl_asrc_sel_proc to replace the table, which
> > > > can give the pre-processing and post-processing options according
> > > > to the sample rate.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>
> > >
> > > A couple of more small comments.
> > >
> > > And please add this when you resend:
> > > Acked-by: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
> > >
> > > > + * Unsupport cases: Tsout > 8.125 * Tsin, Tsout > 16.125 * Tsin
> > >
> > > Since we have a ratio validation somewhere else, it's okay to drop
> > > this line -
> > > - it may confuse people since the function no longer checks these
> > > unsupported cases.
> >
> > I add this for may be in the future we forget the limitation. Just for a
> reminder.
> 
> Okay. Let's use something more practical like:
> 
> +* Make sure to exclude following unsupported cases before calling the
> function:
> +* 1) outrate > 8.125 * inrate
> +* 2) outrate > 16.125 * inrate

Ok.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists