linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 12/23] ASoC: amd: acp70: add acp ip interrupt handler

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: <1e10c851-f4fc-4e76-806d-5f1214f29bdf@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:47:18 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 "Mukunda,Vijendar" <vijendar.mukunda@....com>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz,
 tiwai@...e.com, Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com, Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com,
 venkataprasad.potturu@....com, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 12/23] ASoC: amd: acp70: add acp ip interrupt handler

On 1/20/2025 12:39, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:48:00PM +0530, Mukunda,Vijendar wrote:
>> On 20/01/25 23:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>>> +static irqreturn_t acp70_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>> +{
> 
>>> This really does seem *very* similar to the acp63 code...
> 
>> Compared to PS, in ACP70 wake interrupt logic added.
>> New register fields got introduced inACP70 compared to PS.
>> Please refer below patch.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250120100130.3710412-18-Vijendar.Mukunda@amd.com/
>> Let this patch series go as initial version for ACP70 platform.
>> We will revisit the code and implement common helper functions in the next cycle.
> 
> That does feel like quirks and new features rather than a completely
> distinct IP.

I see it as different forms of tech debt.  Either you keep track of 
which features the 62 vs 70 hardware supports by different drivers or 
add logic in all the relevant functions().

The former increases LoC but reduces risk for mistake (IE avoid oops, I 
forgot this is only supported on 70+ when adding new features).

I'm sure there are opportunities for helpers to be created, but I think 
they all need to be weighed against which tech debt is better to adopt.

Changing code that affects a lot of hardware means a lot more testing 
too.  Perhaps after Vijendar's series lands he can split up some of the 
purely duplicated functions into helpers or callbacks and arrange all 
that testing?