Re: [PATCH 1/5] ASoC: Intel: Disable route checks for Skylake boards

[Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2024-03-04 10:02 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 3/4/24 14:40, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> > On 2024-03-04 8:28 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > On 3/4/24 13:05, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> > > > Topology files that are propagated to the world and utilized by the
> > > > skylake-driver carry shortcomings in their SectionGraphs.
> > > >
> > > > Since commit daa480bde6b3 ("ASoC: soc-core: tidyup for
> > > > snd_soc_dapm_add_routes()") route checks are no longer permissive. Probe
> > > > failures for Intel boards have been partially addressed by commit
> > > > a22ae72b86a4 ("ASoC: soc-core: disable route checks for legacy devices")
> > > > and its follow up but only skl_nau88l25_ssm4567.c is patched. Fix the
> > > > problem for the rest of the boards.
> > > >
> > > > Link:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200309192744.18380-1-pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > Fixes: daa480bde6b3 ("ASoC: soc-core: tidyup for
> > > > snd_soc_dapm_add_routes()")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/bxt_da7219_max98357a.c       | 1 +
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/bxt_rt298.c                  | 1 +
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/glk_rt5682_max98357a.c       | 1 +
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/kbl_da7219_max98357a.c       | 1 +
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/kbl_da7219_max98927.c        | 4 ++++
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/kbl_rt5660.c                 | 1 +
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/kbl_rt5663_max98927.c        | 2 ++
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/kbl_rt5663_rt5514_max98927.c | 1 +
> > > >    sound/soc/intel/boards/skl_hda_dsp_generic.c        | 1 +
> > >
> > > This HDAudio machine driver is shared with the SOF-based solutions and I
> > > see no reason to change the route checking...
> > >
> > > I don't agree with this change. Why can't you fix the broken topologies
> > > instead, if indeed they 'carry shortcomings'?
> > >
> > > Same for glk, this an SOF-based solution.
> >
> > Perhaps the flag could be set conditionally for those two?
> >
> > Even when you address the problem in the topology file, you do not get
> > any confirmation user replaced the invalid file. skylake-driver topology
> > were not part of any firmware-alike package. Please note that I actually
> > did all that I believe could be done to repair those topologies and
> > provided valid references at avs-topology/for-skylake-driver [1].
>
> Humm, the commit daa480bde6b3 ("ASoC: soc-core: tidyup for
> snd_soc_dapm_add_routes()") dates from August 2019 and was included in
> kernel 5.4.
>
> Why are we seeing issues on route checks with the Skylake driver in
> 2024? Are we saying that the card creation failed for the last 5 years?
>
> I must be missing something here.

Nah, no customer would allow that kind of delay :D

Unfortunately, nothing out of ordinary. In 2018/19/20 we had to fix 
everything "immediately" and not everything got pushed to upstream-users.