On 2020-10-12 9:42 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/12/20 9:24 AM, Rojewski, Cezary wrote: ... >> >> Hello, >> >> Series: >> [PATCH v2 00/13] ASoC: Intel: Remove obsolete solutions and components >> https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/20201006064907.16277-1-cezary.rojewski@xxxxxxxxx/ >> >> >> removes sst-acpi component along with many others so further changes to >> said component will only cause conflicts -or- require commit reordering. >> I'd advice against that. > > As I already mentioned in the private-thread which Pierre-Louis started > with me, Jaroslav Kysela and Liam about this I would advice against > applying > that series for now. First we need to put in more work to make sure that > the new drivers are actually ready. > > Also I must say that I'm quite disappointed that since I, as the person > who more or less single handedly have made sure that audio works properly o > Bay Trail and Cherry Traul devices (*), has not been Cc-ed on that series, > that seems like a huge oversight. > > Anyways I will reply in the thread of the series and ask Mark to revert > the entire series. Since IMHO the new drivers are clearly not ready yet. > Yesterday I ran my first set of tested and I immediately hit a DSP > hang doing just a few very basic tests. > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > *) And kept it working properly despite other people breaking it with > changes > like moving the userspace stuff to UCM2. > Hello, What's the name of the private-thread? Or perhaps I'm not even invited there? Please, elaborate "new drivers". /baytrail/ has been deprecated for years with only two available boards (machine boards) to it - which are somewhat duplicates of /atom/ -or- SOF equivalents (bytcr-xxxx). From linux-kernel perspective, having 3x baytrail driver is simply bad. Several teams, clients and groups have been asked on multiple occasions about the usage of the /baytrail/ folder. Not once positive answer has been given. Thanks, Czarek
