[alsa-devel] MPC5200/WM9712 mute problem
bones at secretlab.ca
Thu Aug 6 19:28:41 CEST 2009
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 18:03 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:30:53AM -0700, John Bonesio wrote:
> > I've retitled the email to better reflect the real patch. I believe
> > there has been some general confusion because I originally sent the
> > wrong patch.
> Retitling again; I don't think we've diagnosed what is causing issues
> here. Doing a quick test here I wasn't able to reproduce this behaviour
> so I suspect either the AC97 controller by itself or some interaction
> between it and the WM9712. Like I say, the WM9712 is not a new part and
> the drivers aren't new either so it'd be surprising to find an issue
> like this now.
Ok. At this point I'm not trying to get the patch approved so much as
I'd like to see if we can get to the root cause of the problem.
> > > Like I said before, exactly which control are you adjusting here?
> > My description of this got lost in all the confusion. Let me try again.
> > We are adjusting the mixer bits for mute/unmute on two of the mixer
> > settings. The first one is general headphone mute setting on register
> > 0x4 (bit 15). The second one is the PCM mute setting on register 0x18
> > (bit 15).
> Hrm, so the same bit in both registers. Suspicious...
> > What we are seeing is that if we first unmute the general headphone (reg
> > 0x4 bit15), then unmute the PCM (reg 0x18 bit 15) [HPL PCM in the
> > alsamixer application], the general headphone gets muted again, even
> > though software didn't write to that register.
> Are any other bits in register 4 affected or is it only bit 15?
So far, I've only seen this one bit affected. There are lots of
combinations that could be tested, and I've not done comprehensive test
of every bit. It's possible that other bits are affected in ways that
don't show up in my testing.
Below I describe in more detail how I've tested.
> > > My money would be on the AC97 controller having problems; the quality of
> > > SoC AC97 controllers is variable. It certainly doesn't sound like a
> > > WM9712 issue; as I say I'd be very surprised if such an issue hadn't
> > > come up before given how widely deployed the part is.
> > We don't have access to an AC97 analyzer. Do you have any suggestions on
> > other ways we can pinpoint the error?
> Any scope that can capture would be useful to see what's going on;
> obviously decode would have to be by hand. Coding out the register
> cache may also be useful - it'd allow you to see the current hardware
> register values.
In case anyone else sees this problem, and would like to jump in, here
is what I've done to investigate this problem.
First I added a debugfs file that displays nearly all of the mixer
registers and decodes their bits for convenience. I've attached a patch
for this change. I believe this patch is just for debugging. I don't
expect that this patch needs to go into the main source.
The debugfs file bypasses the register cache in the codec. It also reads
the value in the cache and compares them. If the register value is
different than that of the cache, text is added to the debugfs file to
alert the viewer of this.
When the error occurs, the cache no longer reflects the value of the
As mentioned before, I've also hooked the out_be32() routine, and had it
print a message whenever register 0x4 of the codec (The headphone mixer
register) is modified by software.
The register is written indirectly, so to be clear, the hook in
out_be32() checked for writes to the ac97_cmd register and the register
number field of the value written had 0x4 in it. (e.g. (value >> 24) &
0x7f) == 0x4)
The hook didn't check for the "write" bit so it also ended up displaying
a message whenever register 0x4 was read as well as written.
In my tests register 0x4 is being modified outside the software path
that would deliberately modify this register using out_be32().
I didn't include a patch for this hook, as it was very hacky, and I
wasn't so sure about its usefulness.
This issue has been seen on MPC5200 based boards.
I've chatted with Grant a bit. We'll see what we can scrounge up to hook
up some test equipment. I'm not sure when we'll get to this.
I'm open to more suggestions or thoughts on the approach I've taken so
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 10063 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20090806/8e02a6ea/attachment.patch
More information about the Alsa-devel