linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ASoC: amd: acp: Add support for nau8825 and max98360 card

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:   Wed, 25 May 2022 16:25:33 -0500
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     V sujith kumar Reddy <Vsujithkumar.Reddy@....com>,
        broonie@...nel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc:     Vijendar.Mukunda@....com, Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com,
        Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com, ajitkumar.pandey@....com,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...el.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>,
        Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.odaki@...il.com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ASoC: amd: acp: Add support for nau8825 and
 max98360 card




> +struct snd_soc_acpi_mach snd_soc_acpi_amd_rmb_sof_machines[] = {
> +	{
> +		.id = "AMDI1019",
> +		.drv_name = "rmb-dsp",
> +		.pdata = &acp_quirk_data,
> +		.fw_filename = "sof-rmb.ri",
> +		.sof_tplg_filename = "sof-acp-rmb.tplg",
> +	},
> +	{
> +		.id = "10508825",
> +		.drv_name = "nau8825-max",
> +		.pdata = &acp_quirk_data,
> +		.machine_quirk = snd_soc_acpi_codec_list,
> +		.quirk_data = &amp_max,
> +		.fw_filename = "sof-rmb.ri",
> +		.sof_tplg_filename = "sof-acp-rmb.tplg",

this looks rather odd, you have two entries in the table that point to
the exact same pair of firmware and topology files. This is either
intentional and missing a comment, or a copy-paste mistake, or some of
these fields are not required.

> -	clk_disable_unprepare(drvdata->wclk);
> +	if (!drvdata->soc_mclk)
> +		clk_disable_unprepare(drvdata->wclk);
>  }

mclk and wclk are different concepts usually.


>  struct acp_card_drvdata {
> @@ -49,6 +51,7 @@ struct acp_card_drvdata {
>  	unsigned int dai_fmt;
>  	struct clk *wclk;
>  	struct clk *bclk;
> +	bool soc_mclk;

I wonder if soc_mclk means 'soc_clock_provider' ?

it looks like a configuration instead of a real/physical clock?