linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: core: Don't set platform name when of

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:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 14:23:00 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....nxp.com>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@....com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: core: Don't set platform name when of_node is set

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:37:30PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 1:59 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > No, just the opposite!  If there's an explict name configured why do you
> > want to ignore it?

> Because the initial assignment:

> dai_link->platforms->name = component->name;

> doesn't take into consideration that dai_link->platform->of_node is
> also explicitly configured.

But why should we take that into consideration here?

> dai->link->platforms->of_node
> configured and we hit this error:
> 
> soc_dai_link_sanity_check:
> /*
>  * Platform may be specified by either name or OF node, but it
>  * can be left unspecified, then no components will be inserted
>  * in the rtdcom list
>  */
> if (!!platform->name == !!platform->of_node) {
>     dev_err(card->dev,
>     "ASoC: Neither/both platform name/of_node are set for %s\n", link->name);
>     return -EINVAL;
> }

OK, but then does this check actually make sense?  The code has been
that way since the initial DT introduction since we disallow matching by
both name and OF node in order to avoid confusion when building the card
so I think it does but it's only with this mail that I get the
information to figure out that this is something we actually check for
then go find the reason why we check.

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