On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:03:31PM +0100, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > Side note: > I have considered fixing this in the DSDT table a few times before but > have never tried it because it kind of feels wrong to me. It would > probably work, but I believe the kernel is at fault here: > I've been fixing mistakes and adding missing GPIOs to the DSDT, but is > this really the case here? Everything that is needed for the driver > exists in the ACPI table. If this was a BYT-CR device, it would work > as-is, with no additional modifications. > Now, in order to fulfill the current expectations for BYT-T devices, > I would need to add 4 additional IRQs that would never be used. > But which IRQs would I list there? Dummy/invalid IRQs? To me, that > does not sound like the DSDT will become any more valid. > Let me know what you think! :) This thread appears to have died without a conclusion I can see? I don't have strong feelings here, it seems like it's a choice between different evils so people working on the platform should make the call.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
