linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: xilinx: xlnx_i2s: Discover parameters from registers

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: <866360d1-19d1-4a72-91a6-b2e716195820@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 20:58:19 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: xilinx: xlnx_i2s: Discover parameters from
 registers

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 12:46:27PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 1/29/26 12:27, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 12:23:15PM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > 
> >> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "xlnx,num-channels", &drv_data->channels);
> > 
> >> -	ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "xlnx,dwidth", &drv_data->data_width);
> > 
> > Given that the properties already exist it seems wise to continue to
> > parse them if available and prefer them over what we read from the
> > hardware, it would not shock me to discover that hardware exists where
> > the registers are inaccurate or need overriding due to bugs.
> 
> I would be surprised if such hardware exists. These properties are
> automatically generated by Xilinx's tools based on the HDL core's
> properties. This has a few consequences:
> 
> - They always exactly match the hardware unless someone has gone in and
>   modified them. I think this is unlikely in this case because they
>   directly reflect parameters that should not need to be adjusted.
> - Driver authors tend to use them even when there are hardware registers
>   available with the same information, as Xilinx has not always been
>   consistent in adding such registers.
> 
> I am not aware of any errata regarding incorrect generation of
> properties for this device or cases where the number of channels or bit
> depth was incorrect.

Does version 0.0 of this IP core have this register? Its not a new
addition?

Is there a synthesis option to disable this register?

   Andrew