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  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:   Sat, 14 May 2022 23:20:45 +0800
From:   sugar zhang <>
To:     Mark Brown <>, Maxime Ripard <>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <>,
        Jiapeng Chong <>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <>,
        Liam Girdwood <>,
        Takashi Iwai <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: hdmi-codec: Add option for ELD bypass

Hi Mark, Maxime,

在 2022/5/4 4:44, Mark Brown 写道:
> On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 10:38:52AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> I think some more documentation is needed there to describe how it's
>> going to be used.
>> Like, you mention that it's relevant when the EDID is not valid. But if
>> the EDID is valid, is bypass still allowed or not?
> I'd expect so given that it's explicitly an override and that it's not
> like it's unknown for people to put nonsense in ID information.
>>> +static int hdmi_codec_eld_bypass_put(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
>>> +				     struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct snd_soc_component *component = snd_kcontrol_chip(kcontrol);
>>> +	struct hdmi_codec_priv *hcp = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
>>> +
>>> +	if (hcp->eld_bypass == ucontrol->value.integer.value[0])
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +
>>> +	hcp->eld_bypass = ucontrol->value.integer.value[0];
>>> +
>>> +	return 1;
>>> +}
>> If the ELD bypass is set, how does it affect the hdmi_codec_params being
>> passed to the codec?
> Presumably we should tell the CODEC what we're trying to play (looks
> like that's what the current code does)?
>> Also, what is being returned to the userspace by hdmi_eld_ctl_get once
>> the bypass is enabled?
> My first thought would be that we'd always read whatever is there
> rather than trying to make something up, bypass just says we're not
> enforcing it.
>> And shouldn't we call get_eld when we remove the bypass?
> Or given what I just said above should we not change any get_eld() calls
> but instead only change things so that we don't look at the ELD data
> when setting constraints during startup() and during channel map
> operations?  In that case we wouldn't need to read again.

I agree this idea that just don't use it for constraints and channel map 
or something else.

but still do get_eld() as it was. will do in v3.

Best Regards!
Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists