linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: Intel: maxim-common: get codec number from ACPI

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: <bbf9baf1-d55b-b846-740f-1ed8976b82b4@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:41:53 +0200
From:   Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Liao, Bard" <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Lu, Brent" <brent.lu@...el.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Cc:     "Rojewski, Cezary" <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Zhi, Yong" <yong.zhi@...el.com>,
        Ajye Huang <ajye_huang@...pal.corp-partner.google.com>,
        "Bhat, Uday M" <uday.m.bhat@...el.com>,
        Terry Cheong <htcheong@...omium.org>,
        "Chiang, Mac" <mac.chiang@...el.com>,
        "R, Dharageswari" <dharageswari.r@...el.com>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: Intel: maxim-common: get codec number from ACPI

On 7/27/23 5:21 AM, Liao, Bard wrote:
> 
> On 7/27/2023 10:14 AM, Lu, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> max_98390_components[] and max_98390_4spk_components[] are still used
>>>
>>> by sof_rt5682.c, we should remove them in the same patch.
>>>
>>> Maybe combine the 2 patches together?
>>>
>>>
>> I've got your point but these two patches are doing two things: one is 
>> refactor the
>> code and add a detection feature, the other one is removing the quirk. 
>> Not sure if
>> it's proper to merge them.
> 
> The point is that if you remove them and they are still used somewhere,
> 
> you will break the build. i.e. Kernel will not compile if we apply the
> 
> first patch only.

IOW git bisect is broken and that's a big no-no.