linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoc: amd: create platform device for VG machine driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:13:59 +0530
From:   "Mukunda,Vijendar" <vijendar.mukunda@....com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Alexander.Deucher@....com,
        Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com, David.Rhodes@...rus.com,
        wtli@...oton.com, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoc: amd: create platform device for VG machine
 driver

On 10/11/21 11:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:48:40AM +0530, Mukunda,Vijendar wrote:
>> On 10/11/21 11:19 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>>> +		pdevinfo[3].name = "acp5x_nu8821_cs35l41_mach";
> 
>>> This appears to unconditionally assume that any machine with this
>>> hardware is going to have exactly the same CODEC/amp combination - that
>>> seems like it's going to go badly at some point.  Shouldn't there be
>>> some other check that we're instantiating the right machine driver?
> 
>> we will make the platform device as generic one something like "acp5x_mach".
> 
>> Currently we have only one target platform with above codec combinations
>> for this APU series.
> 
>> When we get new codecs combinations to support, we will address it in
>> machine driver by adding DMI checks for distinguishing codec combinations.
> 
> If that's the case then this machine driver that's being instantiated is
> poorly named, and I expect you're going to get issues with assuming a
> default here and trying to instantiate this machine on unsuitable
> hardware.  It'd be better to at least put a bit of the framework in now
> and positively indentify systems that can run this machine driver.

Will address it by adding DMI checks in machine driver code.
> 
> It really would be good if ACPI system vendors were to adopt a more
> standards based approach to platform enumeration, this really isn't
> good.  Something more standards based like DT has would be much more
> scalable.
>