asahi-audio VS linux

This project seems to be progressing the audio, activity from last month.

https://github.com/chadmed/asahi-audio

I am aware of that, that's why I mentioned it could be an ALSA plugin.

From https://github.com/chadmed/asahi-audio

> ASoC exposes the speaker array as six independent drivers - two woofers and a tweeter each for Left and Right. We want userspace to see this as a standard stereo speaker pair. The configuration fragment shipped in this package sets up a virtual sink that takes a stereo input and routes it appropriately to each driver.

> We then run into another issue - the speakers sound awful. Turns out Macs aren't magic, they sound good because Apple invest a lot of engineering effort into DSP. Apple actually handle this with odd bespoke Core Audio plugins. We use PipeWire's convolver plugin to apply impulse responses to each driver, which effectively EQs the output signals.

> The kernel driver currently makes no effort to diminish your ability to destroy your machine through misconfigured settings in userspace

This is what I find quite unacceptable from a design PoV, this kind of safety should be as close to the kernel as possible.

Is this then the repo that needs to be finished up https://github.com/chadmed/asahi-audio ? If that is the case, do you (or anyone else in the thread) know what is left for the quality to meet the standard of Asahi?

Trying to follow the guide here - https://github.com/chadmed/asahi-audio and everything seemed painless until I got to the devicetree part, and it has stumped me. Being a regular Arch user for more than 4 years and this is either 1) So easy everyone can do it and I just am not understanding 2) More difficult than anyone is willing to provide guidance on.

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...