From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@treblig.org>
To: Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david@rowetel.com
Subject: Re: users of drivers/misc/echo ?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:39:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z74OSsZqeboJml9c@gallifrey> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z73MevharqkC5dt8@nataraja>
* Harald Welte (laforge@gnumonks.org) wrote:
> Hi Dave, Arnd, Greg,
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 01:01:06PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > However, those DAHDI-using deployments that I personally am familiar
> > > with do not use the software echo canceller discussed here. On the
> > > other hand, I'm quite certain that there are many PBX/IVR related
> > > systems out there (unrelated to my area of cellular or trunked radio)
> > > that would still use the echo canceller discussed here.
>
> I have to correct myself here: "that would still use software echo cancellation".
>
> As I stated before, in "my" deployments, the echo canceller is not used
> and hence I'm not super familiar with it. My use cases either don't
> need echo cancellation, or use hardware echo cancellation.
>
> Revisiting the DAHDI source code as a result of this thread: There are
> actually several different software echo cancellation implementations,
> only one of which (oslec) is using the drivers/misc/echo.
>
> > Some questions:
> >
> > 1) I see drivers/dahdi/dahdi_echocan_oslec.c
> >
> > /* Fix this if OSLEC is elsewhere */
> > #include "../staging/echo/oslec.h"
> > //#include <linux/oslec.h>
> >
> > now that moved to drivers/misc in 2014 by Greg's
> > 6e2055a9e56e ("staging: echo: move to drivers/misc/")
> >
> > So is most of this on ancient kernels or do people
> > actually use modern stuff?
>
> Actually, looking at DAHDI, I really don't think anyone is still using
> the dahdi_echocan_oslec code. It is disabled by default and only built
> if explicitly enabled by the user, and indeed if anyone did that it
> would fail to build for any kernels that have moved it out of staging.
It looks like Debian is including and enabling it in it's DKMS build:
# apt install dahdi-dkms
...
dahdi_echocan_oslec.ko:
Running module version sanity check.
- Original module
- No original module exists within this kernel
- Installation
- Installing to /lib/modules/6.1.0-31-amd64/updates/dkms/
...
# nm /lib/modules/6.1.0-31-amd64/updates/dkms/dahdi_echocan_oslec.ko
...
U oslec_create
U oslec_free
U oslec_update
...
> > 2) I see there is a fir.h that's different from the kernels
> > drivers/misc/echo/fir.h doesn't that cause problems?
> > Should one get updated from the other somehow?
>
> I'll not investigate that given the above determination.
>
> > 3) Any idea why it's never been upstreamed?
>
> I can only speculate, but I guess it was never a strong priority for the authors,
> and indeed likely the code would have had to undergo quite some changes.
>
> DAHDI is clearly well beyond its peak user base these days, and I would
> expect the amount of effort into mainlining it, together with the
> associated risk of introducing bugs during required refactoring simply
> doesn't make it an attractive proposition. Also, given that userspace
> applications for it have been around for decades, it would be impossible
> to address any upstreaming related change requests without rendering
> those applications incompatible.
>
> So I'd really not bother at this point anymore. The few adjustments
> I/we had to make to keep it building + working with recent kernels over
> the past few years are minimal, and mostly trivial stuff like minor
> kernel API changes. In the end, DAHDI doesn't interact with a lot of
> other kernel. It talks to the hardware via its own device drivers, and
> it talks to userspace programs via character devices. So unless some
> core kernel memory allocator, or PCI or USB device drive APIs or
> character device API changes, we're mostly good.
OK.
Dave
> --
> - Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> https://laforge.gnumonks.org/
> ============================================================================
> "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
> (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
>
--
-----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \
\ dave @ treblig.org | | In Hex /
\ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-25 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-23 17:23 users of drivers/misc/echo ? Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2025-02-23 20:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-02-25 12:33 ` Harald Welte
2025-02-25 13:01 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2025-02-25 13:58 ` Harald Welte
2025-02-25 18:39 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert [this message]
2025-02-25 19:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-02-25 19:08 ` Harald Welte
2025-02-25 22:04 ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2025-02-26 7:12 ` Harald Welte
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Z74OSsZqeboJml9c@gallifrey \
--to=linux@treblig.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=david@rowetel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=laforge@gnumonks.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox