linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/13] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916/39: Add QDSP6

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: <959825a0-5327-46b7-b91d-9753601c7ba0@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 21:05:24 +0200
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        phone-devel@...r.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916/39: Add QDSP6

On 26.09.2023 20:54, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:46:36PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 26.09.2023 18:51, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
>>> MSM8916 and MSM8939 do not have a dedicated ADSP. Instead, the audio
>>> services via APR are also implemented by the modem DSP. Audio can be
>>> either routed via the modem DSP (necessary for voice call audio etc)
>>> or directly sent to the LPASS hardware (currently used by DB410c).
>>> Bypassing QDSP6 audio is only possible with special firmware
>>> (on DB410c) or when the modem DSP is completely disabled.
>>>
>>> Add the typical nodes for QDSP6 audio to msm8916.dtsi and msm8939.dtsi.
>>> The apr node is disabled by default to avoid changing behavior for
>>> devices like DB410c that use the bypassed audio path.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
>>> ---
>> I'm generally grumpy with regards to multi-soc changes that
>> have no need to be multi-soc..
>>
> 
> Well it's 100% the same diff so reviewing it separately doesn't really
> make sense IMHO. When I do "msm8916/39" patches these are generally the
> changes where strictly speaking there is no need to duplicate at all.
> It could go into a common include between both. We just haven't found
> a good solution/agreement yet how sharing SoC components could work.
My bottom line is that, somebody trying to track down an issue on
one may need to unnecessarily resolve 2 merge conflicts when reverting :/

Konrad