linux-kernel - RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ASoC: dt-bindings: Add tas2781 amplifier

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]

Message-ID: <3c48d5e47aff478b8ce8998d7efe001b@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 13:19:39 +0000
From:   "Ding, Shenghao" <shenghao-ding@...com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     Shenghao Ding <13916275206@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org" 
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "lgirdwood@...il.com" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        "perex@...ex.cz" <perex@...ex.cz>,
        "pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com" 
        <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Lu, Kevin" <kevin-lu@...com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Xu, Baojun" <x1077012@...com>, "Gupta, Peeyush" <peeyush@...com>,
        "Navada Kanyana, Mukund" <navada@...com>,
        "gentuser@...il.com" <gentuser@...il.com>,
        "Ryan_Chu@...tron.com" <Ryan_Chu@...tron.com>,
        "Sam_Wu@...tron.com" <Sam_Wu@...tron.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] ASoC: dt-bindings: Add tas2781
 amplifier


On 11/05/2023 07:49, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Missing minItems, but...
> 
>>> +    items:
>>> +      minimum: 0x38
>>> +      maximum: 0x3f
> 
>> ... So these are fixed? No need to encode them in such case...
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your concern here, there's up to 4 possible 
> values from 0x38-0x3f which has more than 4 possible values.

Aren't the addresses going to be incremented by one (up to 8 of devices in total)?

No, the i2c address order is not always monotonic increase or decrease, sometime it would be disorder, according to the application.
Each device would have eight possible i2c address, the final address depends on the hardware connections.

Best regards,
Krzysztof