On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 09:38:21AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > On 12/22/18 8:47 AM, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > Some devices detected as BYT-T by the PMIC-type based detection > > have only a single IRQ listed in the 80860F28 ACPI device. This > > causes -ENXIO later when attempting to get the IRQ at index 5. > > It turns out these devices behave more like BYT-CR devices, > > and using the IRQ at index 0 makes sound work correctly. > > > > This patch adds a fallback for these devices to is_byt_cr(): > > If there is no IRQ resource at index 5, treating the device > > as BYT-T is guaranteed to fail later, so we can safely treat > > these devices as BYT-CR without breaking any working device. > > > > Link: http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2018-December/143176.html > > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Moved the "Detected Baytrail-CR platform" message to is_byt_cr() > > so we can log a different message if the fallback is used. > > > > Tested this on my device as-is, and simulated a "normal" > > BYT-T and BYT-CR device (copied their IRQs to a custom DSDT). > > > > sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c > > index 3a95ebbfc45d..755a396121ff 100644 > > --- a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c > > +++ b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c > > @@ -255,10 +255,22 @@ static int is_byt(void) > > return status; > > } > > -static int is_byt_cr(struct device *dev, bool *bytcr) > > +static int is_byt_cr(struct platform_device *pdev, bool *bytcr) > > { > > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > int status = 0; > > + if (platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 5) == NULL) { > > + /* > > + * Some devices detected as BYT-T have only a single IRQ listed, > > + * causing platform_get_irq with index 5 to return -ENXIO. > > + * The correct IRQ in this case is at index 0, as used on BYT-CR. > > + */ > > + dev_info(dev, "Falling back to Baytrail-CR platform\n"); > > + *bytcr = true; > > + return status; > > + } > > + > > Isn't this going to bypass the PMIC-based detection on all BYT-CR devices? > Maybe move this code as a fallback used when the PMIC-based detection isn't > positive? > Except for the message that is logged, it does not really make a difference. PMIC-based detection is still used for most BYT-CR devices, which usually have 6 IRQs listed. For the few that have not, the end result (bytcr = true) is the same, even if they now use the fallback. I mentioned this in a previous mail when I asked you which option you would prefer (see [1]). Since is_byt_cr() has multiple returns, I cannot just put it last without refactoring the entire method. (Which is something I wanted to avoid...) [1]: http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2018-December/143339.html > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IOSF_MBI)) { > > u32 bios_status; > > @@ -278,10 +290,12 @@ static int is_byt_cr(struct device *dev, bool *bytcr) > > /* bits 26:27 mirror PMIC options */ > > bios_status = (bios_status >> 26) & 3; > > - if ((bios_status == 1) || (bios_status == 3)) > > + if ((bios_status == 1) || (bios_status == 3)) { > > + dev_info(dev, "Detected Baytrail-CR platform\n"); > > *bytcr = true; > > - else > > + } else { > > dev_info(dev, "BYT-CR not detected\n"); > > + } > > } > > } else { > > dev_info(dev, "IOSF_MBI not enabled, no BYT-CR detection\n"); > > @@ -333,10 +347,8 @@ static int sst_acpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > - ret = is_byt_cr(dev, &bytcr); > > + ret = is_byt_cr(pdev, &bytcr); > > if (!(ret < 0 || !bytcr)) { > > - dev_info(dev, "Detected Baytrail-CR platform\n"); > > - > > /* override resource info */ > > byt_rvp_platform_data.res_info = &bytcr_res_info; > > } _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
