Takashi Iwai wrote: > 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? >>> >>> >> 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? > > Hi, AFAIK in 2.6.30 ca0110 was not implemented. I see it start working in 2.6.31-rc3 and did a two weeks running test with 2.6.31-rc5. So I bisected from 2.6.31-rc6 to 2.6.31-rc5 regards, Guillem Solà _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
