[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <365c47d1-6b19-452a-b4f7-ca8a64e2754f@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:28:48 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc: "Mukunda,Vijendar" <vijendar.mukunda@....com>,
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 Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 12:47:18PM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 1/20/2025 12:39, Mark Brown wrote:
> > 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).
Until someone fixes a bug or does some subsystem wide cleanup which
affects both copies of the code (perhaps that already happened since the
code was copied!). There's a reason why this is the general kernel
style.
> 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?
Well, it was getting a new spin anyway for the bits that didn't have the
serial numbers filed off.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists