linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ASoC: SOF: imx: add driver for imx95

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEnQRZArKSOtka46A_SOiV2=8bs9B36ubAJM3GqYJZkKyBt_4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:01:11 +0200
From: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
To: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiumihalcea111@...il.com>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.li@....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

> >>> 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.

With this,

Reviewed-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>

thanks,
Daniel.