On Sun, 10 May 2020 12:17:41 +0200, Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > > 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. OK, now applied all six patches. thanks, Takashi
