<moved to my more open-source friendly email account>
Thanks Mario
On 2022-10-11 13:14, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>
> *Sent:* October 11, 2022 13:08
> *Subject:* [External] RE: [PATCH -next] ASoC: amd: yc: Adding Lenovo ThinkBook
> 14 Gen 4+ ARA and Lenovo ThinkBook 16 Gen 4+ ARA to the Quirks List
> [Public]
>
> Cc:
> Mark Pearson
> Vijendar
> Syed
> Renjith
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linkt <xazrael@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 21:52
>> To: lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx; broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; perex@xxxxxxxx;
>> tiwai@xxxxxxxx; Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linkt
>> <xazrael@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [PATCH -next] ASoC: amd: yc: Adding Lenovo ThinkBook 14 Gen 4+
>> ARA and Lenovo ThinkBook 16 Gen 4+ ARA to the Quirks List
>>
>> Lenovo ThinkBook 14 Gen 4+ ARA and ThinkBook 16 Gen 4+ ARA
>> need to be added to the list of quirks for the microphone to work properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: linkt <xazrael@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch alone makes sense to me.
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
>
> I think it should go in as is, but it prompts another idea to me I want to run by
> Mark specifically..
>
> Should we just drop this whole file down to a much simpler DMI match prefix like
> this:
>
>> + {
>> + .driver_data = &acp6x_card,
>> + .matches = {
>> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BOARD_VENDOR, "LENOVO"),
>> + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "21"),
>> + }
>> + },
>
> That would allow it to match all the Lenovo Rembrandt systems presumably and
> can stop touching the file. This only makes sense if every single Lenovo
> Rembrandt design
> uses a DMIC from ACP. I don't know if that's a valid assumption and I think we
> need Mark
> to confirm it.
>
> The DMI match "technically" would match some of the Intel systems from this
> generation
> but this driver is only "loaded" on AMD Rembrandt systems, so I don't think it's
> a problem.
>
I love the idea but I'm a little hesitant as I don't know if I'll be
able to confirm it authoritatively - I don't have particularly great
levers to pull on for platforms outside the Linux program. I'll try -
but I think chances of being able to reply yes or no with confidence are
limited.
I think it's relatively low risk for breaking anything on this years
platforms - but may get more interesting for next years. If needed can
we then just quirk any platforms that come up that need the logic
reversing or does that get really messy.
I can confirm the "21" match is going to be match a ton of Intel
platforms. For the AMD platforms - will this be limited to Rembrandt
only or will it affect any past/future generations?
Short answer - I'll see what I can find...but no promises
Mark
