linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] ASoC: Intel: bytcr

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:   Sat, 30 Jan 2021 15:40:35 +0000
From:   Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
CC:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        <patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] ASoC: Intel: bytcr_wm5102: Add jack detect
 support

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 01:17:20PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Add jack detect support by creating a jack and calling
> snd_soc_component_set_jack to register the created jack
> with the codec.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
> ---
> +static struct snd_soc_jack_pin byt_wm5102_pins[] = {
> +	{
> +		.pin	= "Headphone",
> +		.mask	= SND_JACK_HEADPHONE,
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.pin	= "Headset Mic",
> +		.mask	= SND_JACK_MICROPHONE,
> +	},
> +};
> +

This patch looks fine to me, but I did have one small question.
What is the thinking behind punting this to the machine driver?

I guess you can not register it if there is no jack present
on the board, or if you have multiple jacks name them
meaningfully. Although I sort of feel like those applied to
the old extcon approach that just internally registered all
the interfaces.

But to be clear not asking for any changes just more about trying
to refine my understanding of things.

Thanks,
Charles