On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:25:17 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> But while writing this, I noticed that Broxton-T seems forgotten.
> Doesn't it need the similar workaround for SKL+ chips?
I meant like below.
Takashi
-- 8< --
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [PATCH] ALSA: hda - Apply quirks to Broxton-T, too
Broxton-T was a forgotten child and we didn't apply the quirks
properly. Let's fix it.
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
---
sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
index e3c696c46a21..774f72b26d13 100644
--- a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
+++ b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
@@ -369,7 +369,8 @@ enum {
#define IS_KBL(pci) ((pci)->vendor == 0x8086 && (pci)->device == 0xa171)
#define IS_KBL_LP(pci) ((pci)->vendor == 0x8086 && (pci)->device == 0x9d71)
#define IS_KBL_H(pci) ((pci)->vendor == 0x8086 && (pci)->device == 0xa2f0)
-#define IS_BXT(pci) ((pci)->vendor == 0x8086 && (pci)->device == 0x5a98)
+#define IS_BXT(pci) ((pci)->vendor == 0x8086 && \
+ ((pci)->device == 0x5a98 || (pci)->device == 0x1a98))
#define IS_GLK(pci) ((pci)->vendor == 0x8086 && (pci)->device == 0x3198)
#define IS_CFL(pci) ((pci)->vendor == 0x8086 && (pci)->device == 0xa348)
#define IS_SKL_PLUS(pci) (IS_SKL(pci) || IS_SKL_LP(pci) || IS_BXT(pci)) || \
--
2.13.1
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
