linux-kernel - Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <88774f89-ce4a-1877-db49-b018d725f1cd@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:42:50 -0700
From:	Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To:	Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jie Yang <yang.jie@...el.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Cc:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc?

Hi,

Fedora got a bug report[1] that sound was failing on Intel Bay Trail Socs
that use the MAX98090 module. I found

Author: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon Feb 8 10:45:38 2016 +0530

     ASoC: Intel: Load the atom DPCM driver only
     
     DPCM driver is recommended for BYT, CHT based platforms, so if
     CONFIG_SND_SST_IPC_ACPI is selected then don't compile the BYT
     Device IDs in common ACPI driver to avoid probe conflicts.
     
     Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
     Acked-by: Jie Yang <yang.jie@...el.com>
     Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
     Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>


which changed the dependencies for CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH.
The set of options Fedora selects means that CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH
can't be selected. Is there another driver that's supposed to replace
CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH on Bay Trail or do the dependencies
need to be updated? The bugzilla has alsa-info for working and non-
working cases and the Fedora config is attached.

Thanks,
Laura


[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335196

View attachment "config-4.6.5-300.fc24.x86_64" of type "text/plain" (175136 bytes)