At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:59:23 +0200, Guillem Solà wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:01:35 +0200, Guillem Solà wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:12:47 +0200, Guillem Solà wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:10:44 +0200, Guillem Solà wrote:
> Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > >> It shows the address 1. So, my patch doesn't work, as it assumes >> address 0. Replace it with 1, and pass probe_mask=0x02. >> >> >> Takashi >> >> >> >> >> > Yeah great, it's working again! > > I did modprobe snd-hda-intel probe_mask=0x03 instead of mask=0x02 to > make it work > > and the patch let this way ( I changed both return 1 and addr=1) > > > Now the question is whether probe_mask=0x03 (or 0x02) works without this patch. How is it?
thanks,
Hi,
after few tests I can conclude that it could work with and without the patch. The same happens with modprobe snd-hda-intel probe_mask=0x03 or 0x02 both can work.
OK, good to hear.
So it seems to be fickle because not all the times you modprobe the intel module it worked.
Do you mean it's still unstable even with probe_mask option, or it is when without?
If probe_mask fixes its fickleness (or flirtation :), the patch below should help. It will set the default probe_mask for your device. Give it a try.
Takashi
Hi,
By fickle I mean that when modprobing hda-intel module sometimes it works fine and others cannot get audio although the system seems to always recognize the card, and yes, I'm always using probe_mask=0x02 option.
Actually, about one of five times I can successfully load the module. As I said the first patch doesn't affect, it has been only the casualty that made me believe it did something.
Hm, then it's still puzzling what causes the problem in the recent kernel. Or is it coincidence?
Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
Uff, really don't know what to say, when I thought I saw some light... I've been testing with 2.6.31-rc6 and 2.6.31 (final) with and without patches and maybe is only the probe_mask option what make it work sometimes.
Perhaps I did bisect bad and wasn't deadff1665491afce124a8ff83f00f784161f660 first bad commit?
Possible. But, before bisecting, we should be really sure which release was really OK. Did 2.6.30 work without any problems?
thanks,
Takashi