linux-kernel - [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: Intel: Remove deferred probe for SOF

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:   Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:13:59 +0200
From:   Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc:     Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alsa-devel <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        sound-open-firmware@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
        Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH] ASoC: SOF: Intel: Remove deferred probe for SOF


On 2023-07-19 13:06, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:48:06 +0200,
> Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>
>>      The 60 seconds timeout is a thing "better than complete disablement",
>>      so it's not ideal, either.  Maybe we can add something like the
>>      following:
>>      
>>      - Check when the deferred probe takes too long, and warn it
>>      - Provide some runtime option to disable the component binding, so
>>        that user can work around it if needed
>>      
>> A module option to snd_hdac_i915_init would probably be the least of all evils
>> here.
> 
> Yes, probably it's the easiest option and sufficient.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Takashi
Hey,

Patch below, can be applied immediately iresspective of the other patches.

---->8----------

Selecting CONFIG_DRM selects CONFIG_VIDEO_NOMODESET, which exports 
video_firmware_drivers_only(). This can be used as a first approximation
on whether i915 will be available. It's safe to use as this is only 
built when CONFIG_SND_HDA_I915 is selected by CONFIG_I915.

It's not completely fool proof, as you can boot with "nomodeset 
i915.modeset=1" to make i915 load regardless, or use
"i915.force_probe=!*" to never load i915, but the common case of booting
with nomodeset to disable all GPU drivers this will work as intended.

Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
---
diff --git a/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c b/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
index 1637dc6e630a6..90bcf84f7b2ce 100644
--- a/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
+++ b/sound/hda/hdac_i915.c
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
  #include <sound/hda_i915.h>
  #include <sound/hda_register.h>

+#include <video/nomodeset.h>
+
  #define IS_HSW_CONTROLLER(pci) (((pci)->device == 0x0a0c) || \
  				((pci)->device == 0x0c0c) || \
  				((pci)->device == 0x0d0c) || \
@@ -122,6 +124,9 @@ static int i915_gfx_present(struct pci_dev *hdac_pci)
  {
  	struct pci_dev *display_dev = NULL;

+	if (video_firmware_drivers_only())
+		return false;
+
  	for_each_pci_dev(display_dev) {
  		if (display_dev->vendor == PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL &&
  		    (display_dev->class >> 16) == PCI_BASE_CLASS_DISPLAY &&