On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:56:32 +0200,
Mailing Lists wrote:
>
> 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?
Currently it's better to grow the explicit allow-list, I suppose.
Those are still handful, hence manageable enough.
But, we should consider improving search_roland_implicit_fb(), too.
Both actions don't conflict, and once after we establish the better
implicit-fb check, the allow-list can be dropped.
thanks,
Takashi
>
> 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
>
>
