linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: sophgo: cv1800b: document DAC overwrite handling

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: <aXkKfZDyG1uxDsD0@anton.local>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 22:57:43 +0400
From: "Anton D. Stavinskii" <stavinsky@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, 
	Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>, 
	Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, sophgo@...ts.linux.dev, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: sophgo: cv1800b: document DAC overwrite
 handling

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 06:49:14PM +0400, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 10:48:07PM +0400, Anton D. Stavinskii wrote:
> > Add comments to cv1800b_dac_mute() and its caller to explain how the
> > overwrite mechanism works and why we force it off before playback.
> > ---
> >  sound/soc/sophgo/cv1800b-sound-dac.c | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> You've not provided a Signed-off-by for this so I can't do anything with
> it, please see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for details
> on what this is and why it's important.

Sorry. I was relying on b4 prep --check. Looks like it was wrong. Should
I resend as v1?