At Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:03:15 +0200, Guillem Solà wrote: > > 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 OK. It's possible that a regression occurs at rc6 because of the core HD-audio changes. But, I still wonder why the patch doesn't change anything. At least, it'd be nice if you can reconfirm that rc5 is really working stably. You can just copy sound/pci/hda/* over any newer kernels. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
