On 1/9/19 1:22 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
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.
this was fixed by the v2 patch applied on January 4?
Applied "ASoC: Intel: sst: Fallback to BYT-CR if IRQ 5 is
missing" to the asoc tree
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
