-----Original Message----- From: Jon Flatley [mailto:jflat@chromium.org] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 5:25 AM To: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com Cc: Jon Flatley jflat@chromium.org; Jie, Yang yang.jie@intel.com; benzh@chromium.org; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org; Ranjani Sridharan ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com; cujomalainey@chromium.org; Jie Yang yang.jie@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [BUG] bdw-rt5650 DSP boot timeout
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:51 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre- louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> wrote:
There seems to be an issue when suspending the ALC5650. I think the nondeterministic behavior I was seeing just had to do with whether or not the DSP had yet suspended.
I reverted commit 0d2135ecadb0 ("ASoC: Intel: Work around to fix HW D3 potential crash issue") and things started working, including suspend/resume of the DSP. Any ideas for why this may be? I would like to resolve this so I can finish upstreaming the bdw-rt5650 machine driver.
Copying Keyon in case he remembers the context.
Reverting a 5yr-old commit with all sorts of clock/power-related fixes looks brave, and it's not clear why this would work with the rt5677 and not with 5650.
No idea, I was just diffing the register writes looking for sources of discrepancy. The Chromium OS 3.14 kernel tree that Buddy uses doesn't have this patch, so I figured what's the worst that could happen?
Hi Jon, sorry about just noticing this thread. From the dmesg log, the issue happens at runtime suspend/resume but not in boot, am I right(you can disable runtime PM for the device to confirm that)?
My points here are: 1. the commit 0d2135ecadb0 was suggested by FW team to W/A D3 potential crash issue. 2. it was verified with rt286(Broadwell.c, e.g. Dell XPS) from our side only(and may have been checked with rt5677 by Chrome team). 3. please follow sequence in broadwell.c if issue happen at boot time. If happened at runtime PM from DSP side, we should see it with all kinds of machine driver. Could you performing more test and debugging to see what it real happen there? 4. we have no reason to remove the commit directly, except correcting if some lines are proved wrong. And, as Pierre mentioned, SOF driver is preferred, as there is no new development effort to support SST haswell/Broadwell driver here(no platform, no developer, :-( ).
Thanks, ~Keyon>
Are you using the latest upstream firmware btw? Or the one which shipped with the initial device (which could be an issue if the protocol
changed).
The firmware I'm loading is: `FW info: type 01, - version: 00.00, build 77, source commit id: 876ac6906f31a43b6772b23c7c983ce9dcb18a1`. Hashes the same as the upstream binary.