On 6/26/24 06:37, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:09:34 +0200,
Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 6/26/24 00:04, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 6/25/24 23:37, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:35:31AM +0200, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 6/21/24 08:15, Amadeusz Sławiński wrote:
On 6/20/2024 9:27 PM, Allen Ballway wrote:
I filed a bug and after sharing the requested information it looks
like this device won't work on SOF without vendor support. Given this,
would the original patch returning this device to using HDAudio be
reasonable, or is there an preferred alternative to force this device
into using HDAudio?
And can you share link to the issue on mailing list, so someone reading
this thread in the future doesn't have to guess where it is? ;)
https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/issues/4981
I don't know what to do with this configuration.
We added a quirk to force SOF to be used for ES8336 devices. It worked
for some, but not for others. Now we have quite a few ES8336-based
platforms that are broken with zero support from the vendor, with
obscure I2C/GPIO/clk issues.
Are we going to tag each one of them and say 'not supported, use HDMI only'?
That's pushing a bit the notion of quirk...It would generate an endless
stream of patches. The alternative is to do nothing and ask that those
platforms revert to HDMI audio only with a kernel parameter. That latter
alternative has my vote.
Given that this apparently does not work for many ES8336 devices,
would it make more sense to disable SOF support for those by default
and _enable_ them with a kernel parameter ?
Some configurations work, so we would break them.
Yes, but for others it is a regression,
Is it? The speaker should have never worked for them without SOF,
either.
Interesting comment, especially in the context of the reasons given for this patch
to be rejected.
Guenter
[Index of Archives]
[Pulseaudio]
[Linux Audio Users]
[ALSA Devel]
[Fedora Desktop]
[Fedora SELinux]
[Big List of Linux Books]
[Yosemite News]
[KDE Users]
