linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: acp: Fix pointer assignments for snd_soc_acpi

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: <cc92a3de-0d90-42eb-95a7-a9638eecfc65@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 17:59:24 +0530
From: Venkata Prasad Potturu <venkataprasad.potturu@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Vijendar.Mukunda@....com,
 Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com, Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com,
 syed.sabakareem@....com, mario.limonciello@....com,
 yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
 Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
 "open list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM..."
 <linux-sound@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: amd: acp: Fix pointer assignments for
 snd_soc_acpi_mach structures


On 6/9/25 17:46, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 05:42:32PM +0530, Venkata Prasad Potturu wrote:
>> This patch modifies the assignment of machine structure pointers in the
>> acp_pci_probe function. Previously, the machine pointers were assigned
>> using the address-of operator (&), which caused incompatibility issues
>> in type assignments.
>>
>> Additionally, the declarations of the machine arrays in amd.h have been
>> updated to reflect that they are indeed arrays (`[]`). The code is
>> further cleaned up by declaring the codec structures in
>> amd-acpi-mach.c as static, reflecting their intended usage.
>>
>> error: symbol 'amp_rt1019' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> error: symbol 'amp_max' was not declared. Should it be static?
> It's fine this time but these staticisiations should have been a
> separate commit since there's no overlap.
Okay, Thanks Mark :).
I will take care next time onwards.