On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 02:44:58PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > On 12/31/18 10:30 AM, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > 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...) > > Ah yes, but there was a side thread with Andy Shevchenko where we discussed > that the initial return can be simplified since there are wrappers for > iosf_mbi_available even when CONFIG_IOSF_MBI is not enabled. The code could > be something like > > diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c > b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c > index ac542535b9d5..58e389a64c6a 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c > +++ b/sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/sst_acpi.c > @@ -255,17 +255,16 @@ 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; > + u32 bios_status; > int status = 0; > > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IOSF_MBI)) { > - u32 bios_status; > + if (!is_byt()) > + return status; > > - if (!is_byt() || !iosf_mbi_available()) { > - /* bail silently */ > - return status; > - } > + if (iosf_mbi_available()) { > > status = iosf_mbi_read(BT_MBI_UNIT_PMC, /* 0x04 PUNIT */ > MBI_REG_READ, /* 0x10 */ > @@ -286,6 +285,20 @@ static int is_byt_cr(struct device *dev, bool *bytcr) > } else { > dev_info(dev, "IOSF_MBI not enabled, no BYT-CR > detection\n"); > } > + > + if (*bytcr == false && > + 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"); > + status = 0; > + *bytcr = true; > + } > + > return status; > } > > Thanks! That looks fine to me. I will test it on my device and send a v2 shortly. Speaking of simplifying is_byt_cr(): Especially its usage in ret = is_byt_cr(pdev, &bytcr); if (!(ret < 0 || !bytcr)) { /* override resource info */ byt_rvp_platform_data.res_info = &bytcr_res_info; } with the negated "or" has been rather confusing to read for me. In my opinion, it would be easier to understand as: if (ret == 0 && bytcr) The return value (`ret`) is only used in this if statement. Since `bytcr` stays false when an error occurs in is_byt_cr(), we could further simplify this by returning the bool directly: if (is_byt_cr(pdev)) Together with: static bool is_byt_cr(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; if (!is_byt()) return false; if (iosf_mbi_available()) { u32 bios_status; int status = iosf_mbi_read(BT_MBI_UNIT_PMC, /* 0x04 PUNIT */ MBI_REG_READ, /* 0x10 */ 0x006, /* BIOS_CONFIG */ &bios_status); if (status) { dev_err(dev, "could not read PUNIT BIOS_CONFIG\n"); } else { /* bits 26:27 mirror PMIC options */ bios_status = (bios_status >> 26) & 3; if ((bios_status == 1) || (bios_status == 3)) { dev_info(dev, "Detected Baytrail-CR platform\n"); return true; } else { dev_info(dev, "BYT-CR not detected\n"); } } } else { dev_info(dev, "IOSF_MBI not enabled, no BYT-CR detection\n"); } 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"); return true; } return false; } What do you think? > > > > > > [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 _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
