[alsa-devel] Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc?

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 06:37:11AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 8/12/16 4:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:31:27PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:

> > > If you remove support for all other baytrail options this driver should
> > > still be there and selectable. We just can't support both this driver for
> > > Chromebooks and the rest for other machines with the same distribution at
> > > the moment.

> > That sounds like a regression, what's the plan to fix it.

> The simple fix is easy: disable all other codecs and the
> BYT_MAX98090 option will be enabled. BYT_MAX98090 relies on the 'old'
> non-dpcm driver which is used only for Chromebooks with Baytrail, which
> never enable any other codecs, so there was never any issue before.

That's not really that helpful for a distro kernel (this is for Fedora
AIUI).

> If there is a need for concurrency, then a new machine driver based on the
> dpcm Atom driver needs to be created. I don't have a Baytrail chromebook so
> don't want to commit on the change.

Presumably someone at Intel has one (or could get one)?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20160812/1f5f2420/attachment-0001.sig>