At Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:22:45 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
[1 <text/plain; ISO-8859-1 (7bit)>] On 01/04/2012 12:06 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Btw, you seem to be employed by Intel these days? [1] Any chance you can talk to your firmware developers of this chip? I assume somebody at Intel should know what method to prefer. That would be the safest/best option IMHO.
Indeed I am and by the time I got around to looking at it other Intel folsk on the list were already digging. Yes we think it needs the same settings as Poulsbo.
Ok, thanks. Let's start there, then. Takashi, would you mind committing the attached patch?
Applied.
Also, we could consider sending both patches to stable as well?
Well, this could be, but the patch won't be applicable without modification to old kernels, so you'd need to resend the patches manually to stable tree in anyway...
thanks,
Takashi
-- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. http://launchpad.net/~diwic [2 0001-ALSA-HDA-Use-LPIB-position-fix-for-Oaktrail.patch <text/x-patch (7bit)>]
From a7c7074e3b9fb993a5e551a911dcd7ec6fba5082 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Henningsson david.henningsson@canonical.com Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 10:12:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ALSA: HDA: Use LPIB position fix for Oaktrail
According to the thread on alsa-devel, the LPIB method is to prefer for Oaktrail controller chip.
Reference: http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2012-January/047800.htm...
Signed-off-by: David Henningsson david.henningsson@canonical.com
sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c index bd447b6..8e232ab 100644 --- a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c +++ b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c @@ -2997,7 +2997,7 @@ static DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(azx_ids) = { AZX_DCAPS_BUFSIZE | AZX_DCAPS_POSFIX_LPIB }, /* Poulsbo */ { PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x080a), .driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_SCH | AZX_DCAPS_SCH_SNOOP |
AZX_DCAPS_BUFSIZE},
AZX_DCAPS_BUFSIZE | AZX_DCAPS_POSFIX_LPIB }, /* Oaktrail */-- 1.7.5.4