On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 10:11:03PM +0200, Kirill Marinushkin wrote: Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context. This allows readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the discussion is being addressed. > Without such a deep understanding of ASoC, as you have, I see a risk in a > bulk enable of `endianness = 1`, the way we do in this patch set. > Here, we enable an extra feature. Worst case, if some codec doesn't support > the feature, we will have a system, which thinks that it's supported, but in > reality, it doesn't work. And we will not even have a error message, because > the driver advertises the feature as supported. > Maybe my carefulness is not applicable here. I see that i don't have enough > expertise in `endianness = 1`, to participate in making the decision here. > But at least i want to ensure, that we all understand the risk. The risk here is that we expose a preexisting bug in some CPU side driver to a wider set of users, but those drivers would still be buggy no matter what and may already be causing problems on some systems even if that's not been reported so if there is a problem it's always possible that we end up helping some users who currently have issues by helping someone realise what the problem is. However most likely nobody will notice anything either way and most systems will continue using exactly the same formats they already were.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
