[PATCH 0/6] ALSA: fireface: add support for Fireface 802 and UFX

[Takashi Sakamoto]

Hi,

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 12:05:58PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 09:42:55 +0200,
> Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Fireface 802 was shipped by RME GmbH in 2014. This model is one of latter
> > models of Fireface series and support both of IEEE 1394 bus and USB.
> > Furthermore, it supports two types of remote control unit (Basic
> > Remote and Advanced Remote Control) with by 9pin mini-din connector.
> > 
> > This patchset adds support for this model as a part of devices available
> > by ALSA firewire stack (therefore it's not a device of USB). Userspace
> > applications can transfer PCM frames and MIDI messages via ALSA PCM
> > and Rawmidi interfaces.
> > 
> > Fireface UFX is also supported since its internal design is almost the
> > same as Fireface 802 in a point of packet communication. The support is
> > untested and the status is 'request for test'.
> > 
> > As well as the other models of RME Fireface series, audio output
> > includes periodical hissing noise. This is not solved yet.
> > 
> > Furthermore, capture of MIDI messages requires assist of userspace
> > application. For the detail, please read comment in
> > 'sound/firewire/fireface/ff-protocol-latter.c'.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Takashi Sakamoto (6):
> >   ALSA: fireface: fix configuration error for nominal sampling transfer
> >     frequency
> >   ALSA: fireface: start IR context immediately
> >   ALSA: fireface: code refactoring to add enumeration constants for
> >     model identification
> >   ALSA: fireface: code refactoring for name of sound card
> >   ALSA: fireface: add support for RME FireFace 802
> >   ALSA: fireface: add support for Fireface UFX (untested)
> 
> Would you like me merging the patches although at least one of them is
> marked untested?  The code changes look reasonable, so I have no
> problem to applying patches themselves to 5.8 branch.

I'd like you to apply them.

For development I have a theory that untested code should not be merged
(yep, as much as possible). However, in the case, I judged that the
untested code might work or slightly work since there seems to be few
differences between 802 and UFX in a view of vendor-dependent protocol
relevant to packet streaming.

(I guess that the only difference is the return value of LATTER_SYNC_STATUS
register; bit-swap case or not.) 

Even if it doesn't work well, it's convenient to me to leave a chance to
get any feedback from the users.


Thanks

Takashi Sakamoto