linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: Intel: Add period size constraint on strago board

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]

Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 10:44:47 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Lu, Brent" <brent.lu@...el.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Cc:     Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rojewski, Cezary" <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sam McNally <sammc@...omium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Stuart <daniel.stuart14@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yu-Hsuan Hsu <yuhsuan@...omium.org>,
        Damian van Soelen <dj.vsoelen@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: Intel: Add period size constraint on strago
 board



On 7/30/20 10:27 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Is this patch required if you've already constrained the period sizes 
>>> for the
>>> platform driver in patch1?
>>
>> Yes or alsa will select 320 as default period size for it.
> 
> ok, then that's a miss in your patch1. 320 samples is a multiple of 1ms 

typo: is NOT

> for 48kHz rates. I think it was valid only for the 16kHz VoIP paths used 
> in some versions of Android, but that we don't support in the upstream 
> code.
> 
> To build on Takashi's answer, the real ask here is to require that the 
> period be a multiple of 1ms, because that's the fundamental 
> design/limitation of firmware. It doesn't matter if it's 48, 96, 192, 
> 240, 480, 960 samples.