[PATCH v4 00/17] ASoC: Intel: haswell and broadwell boards update

[Cezary Rojewski]

On 2022-06-21 11:11 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 6/21/22 12:47, Cezary Rojewski wrote:

>> Hello,
>>
>> Thanks for the report! However, this has been reported earlier during
>> the v2 review [1]. This is also why a fix have been provided [2] earlier
>> today. Notice that shape of link->exit() found here is shared by other
>> Intel boards e.g.: SOF ones. In general, the initial discussion
>> regarding card->remove() revealed some 'probe vs remove' problems within
>> the framework.
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/69e4263a-e036-cb21-2360-55b06600911e@intel.com/
>>
>> [2]:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/1cff4ac0-6d45-95e1-ed9f-6abaded3f8b7@intel.com/T/#t
> 
> It's rather difficult to follow these changes and error reports buried
> in email report sent on a Sunday of a three-day week-end for me.
> I also had additional errors not reported,
> 
> [   36.125113] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: unknown pin HV
> [   36.125128] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: unknown pin VREF
> [   36.125130] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: unknown pin LDO1
> [   36.125921] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: DAPM unknown pin LDO1
> 
> it's unclear to me why a dailink change in a machine driver would cause
> such codec-side issues.
> 
> If the changes in this 17-patch series need to be tied to a framework
> fix, you have to make the dependencies explicit and better yet provide a
> self-contained patch series that does not introduce a temporary
> regression, or introduce the framework change first and clearly describe
> the dependency in a longer Broadwell-specific patchset. This is an 8-yr
> old device, it shouldn't be that hard.


The last part is not helpful in solving the problem.

This reply comments 00/17 whereas in fact you are speaking solely about 
16/17. Because of that I'm suggesting: leave that patch (the 16/17 one) 
out when merging. It will be send later once link->exit() issue is dealt 
with. All other patches are independent of either of changes.

Simultaneously the link->exit() fix, which is the fruit of this 
discussion, is still valid and can be send as standalone patch - what is 
already the case [1].


[1]: 
https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/20220621115758.3154933-1-cezary.rojewski@intel.com/


Regards,
Czarek