linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] ASoC: audio-graph-card2: support explicitly disabled links

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: <87a575o30l.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 01:19:55 +0000
From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
To: Mihalcea Laurentiu <laurentiumihalcea111@...il.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sound@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] ASoC: audio-graph-card2: support explicitly disabled links


Hi Mihalcea

Thank you for rhw the reply

> >> 	BASE0			  PLUGIN
> >> 	+-----------------+
> >> 	| CPU0 <-> Codec0 |     +--------+
> >> 	| CPU1		  | <-> | Codec1 |
> >> 	+-----------------+     +--------+
> >>
> >>
> >> 	BASE1			  PLUGIN
> >> 	+-----------------+
> >> 	| CPU0 <-> Codec3 |     +--------+
> >> 	| CPU1		  | <-> | Codec1 |
> >> 	+-----------------+     +--------+
(snip)
> > BASE
> > 	my_card: card {
> > 		links = <&cpu0>;
> > 		routing = "Headphone0", "Codec0"; /* for CPU0-Codec0 */
> > 	};
> >
> > PLUGIN
> > 	&my_card {
> > 		plugin-links = <&cpu1>, <&cpu2>
> > 		plugin-routing = "Headphone1", "Codec1", /* for CPU1-Codec1 */
> > 		^^^^^^		 "Headphone2", "Codec2"; /* for CPU2-Codec2 */
> > 	};
(snip)
> hm, I believe this _should_ work.

I hope so.

>  I also think that we can just drop the whole
> "ignore_route_check" flag idea
(snip)
> also, I believe we can drop the whole "explicitly disabled links" idea
> since IMO, links passed via the "plugin-links" property _must_ exist.

Yes, agree. It is no longer needed on new plugin-xxx idea.

> if we go for this though I think we need to clarify the usage of the
> "plugin-links" and "plugin-routing" properties.

Yes. I think you need to confirm or persuade to DT maintainer that whether
it can be accepted idea or not.

> Thank you very much for this discussion! It was really, really
> helpful!

Same here. I'm very happy could do that


Thank you for your help !!

Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto