Yes, and I don't think this is practical (at least, not obviously).
The "Roland" vs "BOSS" thing is pure branding. I have BOSS branded devices,
like the JS-8, which work perfectly without the patch as an example. It
wouldn't surprise me if there are recent Roland branded devices which
require the patch.
So I, personally, think it is beyond brand and is device range or
generation specific. I guess it is possible there may be some technical
parameter within the device descriptor which could indicate which variant
the device is, but I don't know what that might be (if at all). At this
point I think we probably have to apply a conditional setting based on the
Product ID.
Given that, is it best to continue hacking these into pcm.c, or should we
be looking at a quirks-table way to describe these?
Cheers,
Keith
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 14:47, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:33:03 +0200,
> Mailing Lists wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the response Takashi,
> >
> > How should this be distinguishing between Roland and BOSS? They both
> have the
> > vendor ID 0x0582.
>
> Ah, right, I missed that point :-<
>
> So the question would be rather how to detect BOSS devices
> effectively...
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 14:09, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 14:17:35 +0200,
> > Mailing Lists wrote:
> > >
> > > Following up on this, it appears there are a bunch of the
> > newer-generation
> > > Roland/Boss devices which need similar treatment.
> > >
> > > So far I have tested the GT-1, the GT-001, and the BR-80, and
> others
> > have
> > > reported the RC-300 as working with similar modifications. I have
> been
> > using
> > > the following change to the code in pcm.c
> set_sync_ep_implicit_fb_quirk:
> > >
> > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01d8): /* BOSS Katana */
> > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x0130): /* BOSS Micro BR-80 */
> > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x0138): /* BOSS RC-300 */
> > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01d6): /* BOSS GT-1 */
> > > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01e5): /* BOSS GT-001 */
> > > /* BOSS Katana amplifiers and many other newer BOSS devices do not
> need
> > quirks
> > > */
> > >
> > > There's probably others too, such as the GT-100 (I believe the
> GT-001
> > and
> > > GT-100 have similar hardware).
> > >
> > > My question is, should this just be submitted as a patch to pcm.c
> or
> > would it
> > > be better handled in quirks and, if so, how?
> > >
> > > Or something else?
> >
> > Do we really need this change at all? I looked at the code again,
> and
> > I noticed that basically the function should return 0 without setting
> > anything else even if you don't have the explicit ID checks there.
> >
> > The function looks like:
> >
> > static int set_sync_ep_implicit_fb_quirk(struct snd_usb_substream
> *subs,
> > struct usb_device *dev,
> > struct
> usb_interface_descriptor
> > *altsd,
> > unsigned int attr)
> > {
> > ....
> > switch (subs->stream->chip->usb_id) {
> > ....
> > case USB_ID(0x0582, 0x01d8): /* BOSS Katana */
> > /* BOSS Katana amplifiers do not need quirks */
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > if (attr == USB_ENDPOINT_SYNC_ASYNC &&
> > altsd->bInterfaceClass == USB_CLASS_VENDOR_SPEC &&
> > altsd->bInterfaceProtocol == 2 &&
> > altsd->bNumEndpoints == 1 &&
> > USB_ID_VENDOR(subs->stream->chip->usb_id) == 0x0582 /*
> Roland
> > */ &&
> > search_roland_implicit_fb(dev, altsd->bInterfaceNumber +
> 1,
> > altsd->bAlternateSetting,
> > &alts, &ep) >= 0) {
> > goto add_sync_ep;
> > }
> >
> > /* No quirk */
> > return 0;
> >
> > ... and the lengthy if-conditions after the switch/case is applied
> > only for Roland devices, hence it shouldn't influence on BOSS
> > devices. After that point, the immediate return with 0, which is the
> > same as we do in switch/case. So the explicit check of BOSS devices
> > there looks superfluous.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Takashi
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Keith A Milner
> >
> >
>
--
--
Keith A Milner
