linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: separate the common code from 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:38:51 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Trevor Wu <trevor.wu@...iatek.com>
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 Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:11:55PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-11-04 at 15:39 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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.

We shouldn't be requiring people to load completely different drivers
based on software configuration, what if a system wants to bypass the
DSP in some but not all configurations?  Can we not just have controls
allowing users to route round the DSP where appropriate?

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