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

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 1/9/19 1:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:03:31PM +0100, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
>
>> Side note:
>> I have considered fixing this in the DSDT table a few times before but
>> have never tried it because it kind of feels wrong to me. It would
>> probably work, but I believe the kernel is at fault here:
>> I've been fixing mistakes and adding missing GPIOs to the DSDT, but is
>> this really the case here? Everything that is needed for the driver
>> exists in the ACPI table. If this was a BYT-CR device, it would work
>> as-is, with no additional modifications.
>> Now, in order to fulfill the current expectations for BYT-T devices,
>> I would need to add 4 additional IRQs that would never be used.
>> But which IRQs would I list there? Dummy/invalid IRQs? To me, that
>> does not sound like the DSDT will become any more valid.
>> Let me know what you think! :)
> This thread appears to have died without a conclusion I can see?  I
> don't have strong feelings here, it seems like it's a choice between
> different evils so people working on the platform should make the call.

this was fixed by the v2 patch applied on January 4?

[alsa-devel] Applied "ASoC: Intel: sst: Fallback to BYT-CR if IRQ 5 is 
missing" to the asoc tree