linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: vangogh: Use non-legacy DAI naming for cs35l41

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c0fa7b9f-8f0b-da2c-5cd9-550df0b695c8@collabora.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 12:31:33 +0300
From:   Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>
To:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: vangogh: Use non-legacy DAI naming for cs35l41


On 7/22/22 12:05, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 02:32:27AM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>> Unlike most CODEC drivers, the CS35L41 driver did not have the
>> non_legacy_dai_naming set, meaning the corresponding DAI has been
>> traditionally registered using the legacy naming: spi-VLV1776:0x
>>
>> The recent migration to the new legacy DAI naming style has implicitly
>> corrected that behavior and DAI gets now registered via the non-legacy
>> naming, i.e. cs35l41-pcm.
>>
>> The problem is the acp5x platform driver is now broken as it continues
>> to refer to the above mentioned codec using the legacy DAI naming in
>> function acp5x_cs35l41_hw_params() and, therefore, the related setup
>> is not being executed anymore.
>>
>> Let's fix that by replacing the obsolete DAI name with the correct one.
>>
>> Fixes: bc949a3b4af3 ("ASoC: core: Switch core to new DAI naming flag")
> 
> Although sorry just noticed you might want to double check the SHA
> here, I think the upstream one is 129f055a2144.

You are right, thanks for noticing!
I've done some rebasing/bisecting operations and I forgot to recheck the 
original commit.. I've just sent v2.

Regards,
Cristian

> Thanks,
> Charles