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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z2MBCPP4G055Jbbs@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:06:16 -0500
From: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
To: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
Cc: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiumihalcea111@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
	Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ASoC: SOF: imx: add driver for imx95

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 03:01:11PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> > >>> Frank
> > >> the SOF drivers do indeed have some similarities, but each of them has their own quirks which IMO makes it a bit harder to add the 95 support. We need to figure out the common parts and then move them to imx-common, but I believe this can be solved incrementally.
> > > You should create common part firstly, then implement equal function with
> > > existed part. Finially add imx95 part.
> > >
> > > Frank
> >
> > Yes, I'm aware of how this _should_ be done, but, like I mentioned, the change is not trivial and will
> > require tweaking the other drivers as well. As such, I'd like to get the 95 support in as-is firstly.
> >
> > Are there any other thoughts on this?
>
> Laurentiu, Frank please trim the emails and keep only the relevant
> part for discussion.
>
> As for this matter I think we should go with the current version Laurentiu sent.
>
> It is inline with the implementation for imx8qxp, imx8qm, imx8mp and
> imx8ulp which we already have upstream.
>
> There is always space for refactorization and improvements. The
> current version of the code
> is simple enough to go in as it is.

Need provide enough reason in commit message show why need create new one,
and but not reused existed one, which help maintainer and reviewer to judge
if it make sense.

Frank

>
> With this,
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
>
> thanks,
> Daniel.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ