| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <b4360ea17c3045759e85ee13fa9c001afe73c93c.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 12:11:55 +0800
From: Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@...iatek.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: <tiwai@...e.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<yc.hung@...iatek.com>, <daniel.baluta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code
from machine driver
On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 06:00:39PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> > Because we will add DSP support, an new machine driver for the same
> > board is required. BE and codec configuration will use the same
> > code
> > when machine driver is designed for the same board.
>
> I don't follow why the DSP support requires a new driver? Shouldn't
> all
> systems with the DSP present be using it?
We need to keep the solution without DSP, so we can replace DSP
solution with non-DSP when it's required. But when we introduce SOF for
DSP control, there will be more routes in machine driver and device
tree usage is different from the original. So it's hard to share the
same driver for these two solutions.
Thanks,
Trevor
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists