Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
[PATCH 1/6] hda_intel: Add Lynx Point HD Audio Controller DeviceIDs
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Seth Heasley
Jan 23, 2012, 7:30:02 PM1/23/12
to
This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
Signed-off-by: Seth Heasley <seth.h...@intel.com>
---
sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c | 5 +++++
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
index 0852e20..adb4fa7 100644
--- a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
+++ b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
@@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE("{{Intel, ICH6},"
"{Intel, PCH},"
"{Intel, CPT},"
"{Intel, PPT},"
+ "{Intel, LPT},"
"{Intel, PBG},"
"{Intel, SCH},"
"{ATI, SB450},"
@@ -2989,6 +2990,10 @@ static DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(azx_ids) = {
{ PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x1e20),
.driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_PCH | AZX_DCAPS_SCH_SNOOP |
AZX_DCAPS_BUFSIZE},
+ /* Lynx Point */
+ { PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x8c20),
+ .driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_PCH | AZX_DCAPS_SCH_SNOOP |
+ AZX_DCAPS_BUFSIZE},
/* SCH */
{ PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x811b),
.driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_SCH | AZX_DCAPS_SCH_SNOOP |
--
1.7.4.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Signed-off-by: Seth Heasley <seth.h...@intel.com>
---
sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c | 5 +++++
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
index 0852e20..adb4fa7 100644
--- a/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
+++ b/sound/pci/hda/hda_intel.c
@@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE("{{Intel, ICH6},"
"{Intel, PCH},"
"{Intel, CPT},"
"{Intel, PPT},"
+ "{Intel, LPT},"
"{Intel, PBG},"
"{Intel, SCH},"
"{ATI, SB450},"
@@ -2989,6 +2990,10 @@ static DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE(azx_ids) = {
{ PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x1e20),
.driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_PCH | AZX_DCAPS_SCH_SNOOP |
AZX_DCAPS_BUFSIZE},
+ /* Lynx Point */
+ { PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x8c20),
+ .driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_PCH | AZX_DCAPS_SCH_SNOOP |
+ AZX_DCAPS_BUFSIZE},
/* SCH */
{ PCI_DEVICE(0x8086, 0x811b),
.driver_data = AZX_DRIVER_SCH | AZX_DCAPS_SCH_SNOOP |
--
1.7.4.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
David Henningsson
Jan 24, 2012, 4:50:02 AM1/24/12
to
On 01/24/2012 01:24 AM, Seth Heasley wrote:
> This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
Thanks. As we asked for oak trail: can you confirm you prefer DMA
> This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
Position buffers for detecting current playback/recording position, over
using the LPIB register?
Also; these types of quirks should have a line "Cc: sta...@kernel.org"
added to their commit messages, that will make it automatically be
applied to some of the older kernels in due time.
http://launchpad.net/~diwic
Takashi Iwai
Jan 24, 2012, 5:00:02 AM1/24/12
to
At Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:45:36 +0100,
I guess this won't need it since it's the successor of PPT.
But it's always good to check it for the new hardware, indeed.
Takashi
David Henningsson wrote:
>
> On 01/24/2012 01:24 AM, Seth Heasley wrote:
> > This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
>
> Thanks. As we asked for oak trail: can you confirm you prefer DMA
> Position buffers for detecting current playback/recording position, over
> using the LPIB register?
Yes, thanks for the notice.
>
> On 01/24/2012 01:24 AM, Seth Heasley wrote:
> > This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
>
> Thanks. As we asked for oak trail: can you confirm you prefer DMA
> Position buffers for detecting current playback/recording position, over
> using the LPIB register?
I guess this won't need it since it's the successor of PPT.
But it's always good to check it for the new hardware, indeed.
Takashi
Heasley, Seth
Feb 6, 2012, 7:20:01 PM2/6/12
to
>> > This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
>>
>> Thanks. As we asked for oak trail: can you confirm you prefer DMA
>> Position buffers for detecting current playback/recording position,
>over
>> using the LPIB register?
>
>Yes, thanks for the notice.
>
>I guess this won't need it since it's the successor of PPT.
>But it's always good to check it for the new hardware, indeed.
I'm also in favor of not rocking the boat, but I'm curious what changing this would entail, and what would be the advantage or rationale for making the change?
>>
>> Thanks. As we asked for oak trail: can you confirm you prefer DMA
>> Position buffers for detecting current playback/recording position,
>over
>> using the LPIB register?
>
>Yes, thanks for the notice.
>
>I guess this won't need it since it's the successor of PPT.
>But it's always good to check it for the new hardware, indeed.
-Seth
David Henningsson
Feb 7, 2012, 12:00:02 AM2/7/12
to
On 02/07/2012 01:13 AM, Heasley, Seth wrote:
>>>> This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
>>>
>>> Thanks. As we asked for oak trail: can you confirm you prefer DMA
>>> Position buffers for detecting current playback/recording position,
>> over
>>> using the LPIB register?
>>
>> Yes, thanks for the notice.
>>
>> I guess this won't need it since it's the successor of PPT.
>> But it's always good to check it for the new hardware, indeed.
>
> I'm also in favor of not rocking the boat, but I'm curious what changing this would entail, and what would be the advantage or rationale for making the change?
Reading the LPIB register, and reading the DMA position buffer, are two
>>>> This patch adds the HD Audio DeviceIDs for the Intel Lynx Point PCH.
>>>
>>> Thanks. As we asked for oak trail: can you confirm you prefer DMA
>>> Position buffers for detecting current playback/recording position,
>> over
>>> using the LPIB register?
>>
>> Yes, thanks for the notice.
>>
>> I guess this won't need it since it's the successor of PPT.
>> But it's always good to check it for the new hardware, indeed.
>
> I'm also in favor of not rocking the boat, but I'm curious what changing this would entail, and what would be the advantage or rationale for making the change?
different methods of reading the current playback (or recording)
position, i e which sample is currently being played back.
The problem is that some chipsets prefer one method over the other, i e,
only one of the methods work reliably. And if the other method only
breaks occasionally, this can be quite difficult to detect and track
down - we will have users complaining about their audio sometimes either
sounding distorted, maybe not working at all, or just once in a while
glitches. All of these symptoms can have many causes, so deducing that
to a broken playback position is time consuming. That's why I think it's
worth the extra question, to get it right from the start.
So...thanks in advance for looking it up for us? :-)
Heasley, Seth
Feb 7, 2012, 7:40:02 PM2/7/12
to
>> I'm also in favor of not rocking the boat, but I'm curious what
>changing this would entail, and what would be the advantage or rationale
>for making the change?
>
>Reading the LPIB register, and reading the DMA position buffer, are two
>different methods of reading the current playback (or recording)
>position, i e which sample is currently being played back.
>
>The problem is that some chipsets prefer one method over the other, i e,
>only one of the methods work reliably. And if the other method only
>breaks occasionally, this can be quite difficult to detect and track
>down - we will have users complaining about their audio sometimes either
>sounding distorted, maybe not working at all, or just once in a while
>glitches. All of these symptoms can have many causes, so deducing that
>to a broken playback position is time consuming. That's why I think it's
>worth the extra question, to get it right from the start.
>
>So...thanks in advance for looking it up for us? :-)
I'm inquiring about it, but I can say that it seems to work just fine using the DMA position buffer.
>changing this would entail, and what would be the advantage or rationale
>for making the change?
>
>Reading the LPIB register, and reading the DMA position buffer, are two
>different methods of reading the current playback (or recording)
>position, i e which sample is currently being played back.
>
>The problem is that some chipsets prefer one method over the other, i e,
>only one of the methods work reliably. And if the other method only
>breaks occasionally, this can be quite difficult to detect and track
>down - we will have users complaining about their audio sometimes either
>sounding distorted, maybe not working at all, or just once in a while
>glitches. All of these symptoms can have many causes, so deducing that
>to a broken playback position is time consuming. That's why I think it's
>worth the extra question, to get it right from the start.
>
>So...thanks in advance for looking it up for us? :-)
-Seth
Takashi Iwai
Feb 8, 2012, 3:40:01 AM2/8/12
to
At Wed, 8 Feb 2012 00:35:33 +0000,
Please let me know if you find a problem.
thanks,
Takashi
Heasley, Seth wrote:
>
> >> I'm also in favor of not rocking the boat, but I'm curious what
> >changing this would entail, and what would be the advantage or rationale
> >for making the change?
> >
> >Reading the LPIB register, and reading the DMA position buffer, are two
> >different methods of reading the current playback (or recording)
> >position, i e which sample is currently being played back.
> >
> >The problem is that some chipsets prefer one method over the other, i e,
> >only one of the methods work reliably. And if the other method only
> >breaks occasionally, this can be quite difficult to detect and track
> >down - we will have users complaining about their audio sometimes either
> >sounding distorted, maybe not working at all, or just once in a while
> >glitches. All of these symptoms can have many causes, so deducing that
> >to a broken playback position is time consuming. That's why I think it's
> >worth the extra question, to get it right from the start.
> >
> >So...thanks in advance for looking it up for us? :-)
>
> I'm inquiring about it, but I can say that it seems to work just fine using the DMA position buffer.
OK, I merged the patch now as is.
>
> >> I'm also in favor of not rocking the boat, but I'm curious what
> >changing this would entail, and what would be the advantage or rationale
> >for making the change?
> >
> >Reading the LPIB register, and reading the DMA position buffer, are two
> >different methods of reading the current playback (or recording)
> >position, i e which sample is currently being played back.
> >
> >The problem is that some chipsets prefer one method over the other, i e,
> >only one of the methods work reliably. And if the other method only
> >breaks occasionally, this can be quite difficult to detect and track
> >down - we will have users complaining about their audio sometimes either
> >sounding distorted, maybe not working at all, or just once in a while
> >glitches. All of these symptoms can have many causes, so deducing that
> >to a broken playback position is time consuming. That's why I think it's
> >worth the extra question, to get it right from the start.
> >
> >So...thanks in advance for looking it up for us? :-)
>
> I'm inquiring about it, but I can say that it seems to work just fine using the DMA position buffer.
Please let me know if you find a problem.
thanks,
Takashi
0 new messages