[alsa-devel] ASoC: Intel: sst: Missing IRQ at index 5 on BYT-T device

[Antonio Ospite]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 15:23:13 +0100
Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 19-12-18 15:04, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > On 12/19/18 7:07 AM, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
[...]
> >> I have tested the patch above on my device with:
> >>   - as-is, without any modifications:
> >>      -> "Falling back to Baytrail-CR platform", sound now working
> >>   - a simulated "BYT-T" device: (copied the IRQs from the DSDT of the T100TA)
> >>      -> "BYT-CR not detected" - uses 5th IRQ, sound working
> >>   - a simulated "BYT-CR" device (made is_byt_cr() return "true" and
> >>     copied the IRQs from the DSDT of the T100TAF)
> >>      -> "Detected Baytrail-CR platform" - uses IRQ at index 0, sound working
> >>
> >> Let me know what you think!
> > 
> > Sounds good, playing with resources is what I had in mind rather than an interrupt count which isn't necessarily safe. The only improvement I would suggest is to add this test inside of is_byt_cr(). This routine will be moved as a helper outside of sst_acpi to be reused for SOF, so if we can make this test more self-contained it's more future-proof.
> 
> AFAICT this will not fix all cases of this, so it might be better to see if
> we can make is_byt_cr() return true on these devices in some other way.
> 
> E.g. the "Teclast X98 Air 3G" Antonio reported does list 5 IRQs, but we
> should still use the first IRQ and not the 5t.
> 
> Antonio, do you know if your device uses SSP0 ?
> 

TBH I don't remember off the top of my head, I'll check my notes and
get back on that when I also report back about recent kernels on my
device.

Ciao,
   Antonio

-- 
Antonio Ospite
https://ao2.it
https://twitter.com/ao2it

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
   See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?