At Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:59:23 +0200, Guillem Solà wrote: > > 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? Possible. But, before bisecting, we should be really sure which release was really OK. Did 2.6.30 work without any problems? thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
