linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Separate BE DAI HW constraints from FE ones

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: <20210415161743.GH5514@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 17:17:43 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Codrin.Ciubotariu@...rochip.com
Cc:     perex@...ex.cz, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gustavoars@...nel.org,
        mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl, tiwai@...e.com, lgirdwood@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Separate BE DAI HW constraints from FE ones

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 02:58:10PM +0000, Codrin.Ciubotariu@...rochip.com wrote:

> How about using a different API for ASoC only, since that's the place of 
> DPCM. Only drivers that do not involve DSPs would have to to be changed 
> to call the new snd_pcm_hw_rule_add() variant.
> Another solution would be to have a different snd_soc_pcm_runtime for BE 
> interfaces (with a new hw_constraints member of course). What do you think?

I'm really not convinced we want to continue to pile stuff on top of
DPCM, it is just fundamentally not up to modelling what modern systems
are able to do - it's already making things more fragile than they
should be and more special cases seems like it's going to end up making
that worse.  That said I've not seen the code but...

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