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:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:32:54 +0530
From:   "Mukunda,Vijendar" <vijendar.mukunda@....com>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        broonie@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Cc:     Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com, Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com,
        Mario.Limonciello@....com, Mastan.Katragadda@....com,
        arungopal.kondaveeti@....com,
        Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Syed Saba Kareem <Syed.SabaKareem@....com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] ASoC: amd: ps: create platform devices based on acp
 config

On 13/01/23 22:41, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>> +		if (is_dmic_dev && is_sdw_dev) {
>>>> +			switch (acp_data->sdw_master_count) {
>>>> +			case 1:
>>>> +				acp_data->pdev_mask = ACP63_SDW_PDM_DEV_MASK;
>>>> +				acp_data->pdev_count = ACP63_SDW0_PDM_MODE_DEVS;
>>>> +				break;
>>>> +			case 2:
>>>> +				acp_data->pdev_mask = ACP63_SDW_PDM_DEV_MASK;
>>>> +				acp_data->pdev_count = ACP63_SDW0_SDW1_PDM_MODE_DEVS;
>>>> +				break;
>>> so the cover letter is indeed wrong and confuses two controllers for two
>>> managers.
>> ACP IP has two independent manager instances driven by separate controller
>> each which are connected in different power domains.
>>
>> we should create two separate ACPI companion devices for separate
>> manager instance.  Currently we have limitations with BIOS.
>> we are going with single ACPI companion device.
>> We will update the changes later.
> Humm, this is tricky. The BIOS interface isn't something that can be
> changed at will on the kernel side, you'd have to maintain two solutions
> with a means to detect which one to use.
>
> Or is this is a temporary issue on development devices, then that part
> should probably not be upstreamed.
It's a temporary issue on development devices.
We had discussion with Windows dev team and BIOS team.
They have agreed to modify ACPI companion device logic.
We will update the two companion devices logic for two manager
instances in V2 version.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ