linux-kernel - Re: Applied "ASoC: core: ensure component names are unique" to the asoc tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200218190314.GM4232@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:03:14 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Applied "ASoC: core: ensure component names are unique" to the
 asoc tree

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:55:31PM +0100, Jerome Brunet wrote:

> 1) Multiple components :
> I found out that in fact it is common for linux devices to register
> multiple components. For most, it is a combination of the dmaengine
> generic and the actual device component, but other register more
> component. Ex:
> - vc4-hdmi
> - atmel-classd
> - atmel-pdmic
> - cros-ec-codec
> - mtXXXX-afe-pcm
> I suspect these trigger the debugfs warning
> Even dummy register two components :D

I hadn't realized we have so many - I'd have expected the debugfs
complaints would've been noticable to people, I was hoping based on the
initial discussion that it was just a couple of quick fixed needed.
Guess not :/

Anyway, I agree that a revert is probably sensible for the time being
and getting this done is more involved - can you send patches doing the
revert with a changelog explaining the rationale please?

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