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
