Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:01:35 +0200, > Guillem Solà wrote: > >> Takashi Iwai wrote: >> >>> At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:12:47 +0200, >>> Guillem Solà wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Takashi Iwai wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:10:44 +0200, >>>>> Guillem Solà wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Takashi Iwai wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It shows the address 1. So, my patch doesn't work, as it assumes >>>>>>> address 0. Replace it with 1, and pass probe_mask=0x02. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Takashi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah great, it's working again! >>>>>> >>>>>> I did modprobe snd-hda-intel probe_mask=0x03 instead of mask=0x02 to >>>>>> make it work >>>>>> >>>>>> and the patch let this way ( I changed both return 1 and addr=1) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Now the question is whether probe_mask=0x03 (or 0x02) works without >>>>> this patch. How is it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> after few tests I can conclude that it could work with and without the >>>> patch. The same happens with modprobe snd-hda-intel probe_mask=0x03 or >>>> 0x02 both can work. >>>> >>>> >>> OK, good to hear. >>> >>> >>> >>>> So it seems to be fickle because not all the times you modprobe the >>>> intel module it worked. >>>> >>>> >>> Do you mean it's still unstable even with probe_mask option, or it is >>> when without? >>> >>> If probe_mask fixes its fickleness (or flirtation :), the patch below >>> should help. It will set the default probe_mask for your device. >>> Give it a try. >>> >>> >>> Takashi >>> >>> >>> >> Hi, >> >> By fickle I mean that when modprobing hda-intel module sometimes it >> works fine and others cannot get audio although the system seems to >> always recognize the card, and yes, I'm always using probe_mask=0x02 option. >> >> Actually, about one of five times I can successfully load the module. As >> I said the first patch doesn't affect, it has been only the casualty >> that made me believe it did something. >> > > Hm, then it's still puzzling what causes the problem in the recent > kernel. Or is it coincidence? > > > Takashi > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-devel mailing list > Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel > Uff, really don't know what to say, when I thought I saw some light... I've been testing with 2.6.31-rc6 and 2.6.31 (final) with and without patches and maybe is only the probe_mask option what make it work sometimes. Perhaps I did bisect bad and wasn't deadff1665491afce124a8ff83f00f784161f660 first bad commit? regards, Guillem Solà _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
