On 02.10.23 16:20, Mario Limonciello wrote: > On 10/2/2023 09:13, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >> On 02.10.23 15:47, Mario Limonciello wrote: >>> On 10/2/2023 06:52, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:32:48AM +0200, Linux regression tracking >>>> (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Makes me wonder: How many more such quirk entries will be needed? Will >>>>> we have all machines listed soon, or do we expect that future Lenovo >>>>> hardware will need entries as well? If it's the latter: are quirks >>>>> really the right solution here, or do they just hide some bug or then >>>>> need for code that automatically handles things? >>>> >>>> x86 firmware descriptions are terrible, it's just an endless procession >>>> of quirks. The model for ACPI is not to describe key information in >>>> the >>>> kernel and instead on Windows load device specific information from >>>> separately supplied tables. On Linux that translates into these >>>> endless >>>> quirks, on Windows it's platform specific drivers for otherwise generic >>>> audio hardware. >>> >>> I knew there was a TON of "82" prefix systems from Lenovo so it was an >>> educated guess that all of them needed DMIC support. This was incorrect >>> because one of them didn't have DMIC and that caused a no mic support >>> problem on that system. >>> >>> So in the case of this seemingly endless list of systems being added to >>> enable DMIC support Mark is right, Windows does it differently. >> >> Now I understand things better, many thx. But please allow me one more >> question from the cheap seats: >> >> Seems before c008323fe361 things worked for a lot of systems for about >> one year thx to 2232b2dd8cd4 (which added the wide "82" prefix quirk). >> We then made that one machine work with c008323fe361, but broke a lot of >> others with it that now need to be fixed with additional quirks; that >> "TON of 82 prefix systems" sounds like we might not be close to the end >> of that journey. >> >> So can't we just do it the other way around and assume DMIC support on >> Lenovo 82* machines, except on those where we know it to cause trouble? >> >> Again: you are the experts here. If you are positive that we soon got >> all machines covered where c008323fe361 causes a regression, then I >> guess it's best to continue the patch we're on. > > I don't like lists And I don't like if we let people run into regressions knowingly. ;) > that enable something for a ton of systems and then > lists that disable something for a subset of them. This becomes > difficult to maintain. Well, I had more thought along the lines of "do enable DMIC on Lenovo 82*, unless the following dmi (the one from c008323fe361) matches". But I assume that's not easy to realize with the quirks table, so I guess that is out. Whatever. Well, I rest my case. But I guess I might come back to this if multiple additional regressions reports come it due to c008323fe361. Ciao, Thorsten
