linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: Intel: sof_rt5682: use id

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: <dfd23e78-b7c8-fa77-035e-19c9af595719@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:58:19 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Curtis Malainey <cujomalainey@...gle.com>
Cc:     Brent Lu <brent.lu@...el.com>,
        ALSA development <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yong Zhi <yong.zhi@...el.com>,
        Vamshi Krishna Gopal <vamshi.krishna.gopal@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rander Wang <rander.wang@...el.com>,
        Bard Liao <bard.liao@...el.com>,
        Malik_Hsu <malik_hsu@...tron.corp-partner.google.com>,
        Libin Yang <libin.yang@...el.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Paul Olaru <paul.olaru@....nxp.com>,
        Curtis Malainey <cujomalainey@...omium.org>,
        Mac Chiang <mac.chiang@...el.com>,
        Gongjun Song <gongjun.song@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: Intel: sof_rt5682: use id_alt to enumerate
 rt5682s


> I don't see an issue with still using a struct since we are using the
> same list across multiple machines, but this makes me wonder if maybe
> we should refactor this into another layer, having the ids at a top
> structure and then the speaker matches a layer down. E.g.
> 
>  struct snd_soc_acpi_mach snd_soc_acpi_intel_adl_machines[] = {
>         {
>                 .drv_name = "adl_mx98373_rt5682",
>                 .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
>                 .quirk_data = &adl_max98373_amp,
>         },
>         {
>                 .drv_name = "adl_mx98357_rt5682",
>                 .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
>                 .quirk_data = &adl_max98357a_amp,
>         },
>         {
>                 .drv_name = "adl_mx98360_rt5682",
>                 .machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
>                 .quirk_data = &adl_max98360a_amp,
>         }
> }
> 
> struct machine_driver adl_rt5682_driver_match {
>   .id = { "10EC5682", "RTL5682" }
>   .instances = &adl_rt5682_machines
> }

We probably need to experiment various options, on one hand the proposal
removes duplication but in a lot of cases outside of Chromebooks/rt5640
there is none, so that table rework adds an indirection with no real
benefit.