On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 08:24:24 +0100, Hui Wang wrote: > > On 12/06/2016 03:07 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 07:39:41 +0100, > > Kai-Heng Feng wrote: > >> Commit [64047d7f4912 ALSA: hda - ignore the assoc and seq when comparing > >> pin configurations] may still fail to match pins on some machines, > >> because the bitmask it used only ignore seq but not assoc. > >> Change the bitmask to also ignore assoc. > > So you are ignoring *both* assoc and seq numbers? > > Or did you intend to ignore only assoc number? > The original intention is to ignoring both assoc and seq numbers. But > my patch only ignored the seq, so this patch can fix my previous > patch. OK, it wasn't clear in the changelog description. Please put it to v2 patch for comprehensive information. > > In anyway, it'd be better to use a macro like > > > > if ((t_pins->val & ~AC_DEFCFGDEF_ASSOC) == (cfg & ~AC_DEFCFG_ASSOC)) > Yes, it is better to use the macro. Let us use the macro in the V2 patch. Great. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
