OK, I will do that.
Quick question: what is the best git I should clone to create patches
against these days? I've been out of the loop for a few years now.
Cheers,
Keith
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 15:00, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
--
--
Keith A Milner
