linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] ASoC: amd: SND_SOC_RT5682

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: <44e86246-516f-3a32-af66-e1c23f560e77@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:18:22 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO" 
        <Vishnuvardhanrao.Ravulapati@....com>
Cc:     "moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM..." 
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@....com>,
        "Mukunda, Vijendar" <Vijendar.Mukunda@....com>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        "Agrawal, Akshu" <Akshu.Agrawal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ASoC: amd: SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C does not build rt5682



On 7/28/20 7:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 06:59:50AM +0000, RAVULAPATI, VISHNU VARDHAN RAO wrote:
> 
>> So Actually for rt5682 codec Now in 5.8 there are three flags :
>> SND_SOC_RT5682
>> SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C
>> SND_SOC_RT5682_SDW
> 
>> But till 5.7.8 we have
>> SND_SOC_RT5682
>> SND_SOC_RT5682_SDW
> 
>> So in our design we were using SND_SOC_RT5682 which build snd_soc_rt5682.ko
>> Creates the respective codec_dais as defined in that .ko
> 
>> If we use SND_SOC_RT5682_I2C we get snd_soc_rt5682_I2c.ko , it is not creating the expected codec_dai links.
> 
> Could you be more specific about the way in which "it is not creating
> the expected codec_dai links" please?  What are you expecting to happen
> and what happens instead?  Do you see any error messages for example?
> 
>> As there are three flags defined in codecs, I expect that previous one which we were using(SND_SOC_RT5682) is not a wrong flag and I expect to use
>> SND_SOC_RT5682 as it is still available.
> 
> Given that the core module does not register with any bus it is
> difficult to see how that could possibly work - the core module doesn't
> contain a driver at all.  Have you tested this change?

I share Mark's point. Have you tested this change on top of Mark's tree, 
or only on top of the stable kernel?