OK, I will do that.
Quick question: what is the best git I should clone to create patches against these days? I've been out of the loop for a few years now.
Cheers,
Keith
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 15:00, Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:56:32 +0200, Mailing Lists wrote:
Yes, and I don't think this is practical (at least, not obviously).
The "Roland" vs "BOSS" thing is pure branding. I have BOSS branded
devices,
like the JS-8, which work perfectly without the patch as an example. It wouldn't surprise me if there are recent Roland branded devices which
require
the patch.
So I, personally, think it is beyond brand and is device range or
generation
specific. I guess it is possible there may be some technical
parameter within
the device descriptor which could indicate which variant the device is,
but I
don't know what that might be (if at all). At this point I think we
probably
have to apply a conditional setting based on the Product ID.
Given that, is it best to continue hacking these into pcm.c, or should
we be
looking at a quirks-table way to describe these?
Currently it's better to grow the explicit allow-list, I suppose. Those are still handful, hence manageable enough.
But, we should consider improving search_roland_implicit_fb(), too. Both actions don't conflict, and once after we establish the better implicit-fb check, the allow-list can be dropped.
thanks,
Takashi
Cheers,
Keith
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 14:47, Takashi Iwai tiwai@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:33:03 +0200, Mailing Lists wrote: > > Thanks for the response Takashi, > > How should this be distinguishing between Roland and BOSS? Theyboth
have the > vendor ID 0x0582. Ah, right, I missed that point :-< So the question would be rather how to detect BOSS devices effectively... thanks, Takashi > > Cheers, > > Keith > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 14:09, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:17:35 +0200, > Mailing Lists wrote: > > > > Following up on this, it appears there are a bunch of the > newer-generation > > Roland/Boss devices which need similar treatment. > > > > So far I have tested the GT-1, the GT-001, and the BR-80, and others > have > > reported the RC-300 as working with similar modifications. Ihave
been > using > > the following change to the code in pcm.c set_sync_ep_implicit_fb_quirk: > > > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01d8): /* BOSS Katana */ > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x0130): /* BOSS Micro BR-80 */ > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x0138): /* BOSS RC-300 */ > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01d6): /* BOSS GT-1 */ > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01e5): /* BOSS GT-001 */ > > /* BOSS Katana amplifiers and many other newer BOSS devicesdo not
need > quirks > > */ > > > > There's probably others too, such as the GT-100 (I believethe
GT-001 > and > > GT-100 have similar hardware). > > > > My question is, should this just be submitted as a patch topcm.c
or > would it > > be better handled in quirks and, if so, how? > > > > Or something else? > > Do we really need this change at all? I looked at the codeagain,
and > I noticed that basically the function should return 0 without setting > anything else even if you don't have the explicit ID checksthere.
> > The function looks like: > > static int set_sync_ep_implicit_fb_quirk(structsnd_usb_substream
*subs, > struct usb_device*dev,
> struct usb_interface_descriptor > *altsd, > unsigned int attr) > { > .... > switch (subs->stream->chip->usb_id) { > .... > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01d8): /* BOSS Katana */ > /* BOSS Katana amplifiers do not need quirks */ > return 0; > } > > if (attr == USB_ENDPOINT_SYNC_ASYNC && > altsd->bInterfaceClass == USB_CLASS_VENDOR_SPEC && > altsd->bInterfaceProtocol == 2 && > altsd->bNumEndpoints == 1 && > USB_ID_VENDOR(subs->stream->chip->usb_id) ==0x0582 /*
Roland > */ && > search_roland_implicit_fb(dev,altsd->bInterfaceNumber +
1, > altsd->bAlternateSetting, > &alts, &ep) >= 0) { > goto add_sync_ep; > } > > /* No quirk */ > return 0; > > ... and the lengthy if-conditions after the switch/case isapplied
> only for Roland devices, hence it shouldn't influence on BOSS > devices. After that point, the immediate return with 0, whichis
the > same as we do in switch/case. So the explicit check of BOSSdevices
> there looks superfluous. > > thanks, > > Takashi > > -- > -- > Keith A Milner > >--
Keith A Milner