[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160812114905.GE9347@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 12:49:05 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Jie Yang <yang.jie@...el.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 06:37:11AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 8/12/16 4:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:31:27PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > > If you remove support for all other baytrail options this driver should
> > > still be there and selectable. We just can't support both this driver for
> > > Chromebooks and the rest for other machines with the same distribution at
> > > the moment.
> > That sounds like a regression, what's the plan to fix it.
> The simple fix is easy: disable all other codecs and the
> BYT_MAX98090 option will be enabled. BYT_MAX98090 relies on the 'old'
> non-dpcm driver which is used only for Chromebooks with Baytrail, which
> never enable any other codecs, so there was never any issue before.
That's not really that helpful for a distro kernel (this is for Fedora
AIUI).
> If there is a need for concurrency, then a new machine driver based on the
> dpcm Atom driver needs to be created. I don't have a Baytrail chromebook so
> don't want to commit on the change.
Presumably someone at Intel has one (or could get one)?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists