linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] ASoC: amd: yc: Fix non-functional mic on Lenovo 82YM

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

Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:20:04 -0500
From:   Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sven Frotscher <sven.frotscher@...il.com>, git@...ustwikerfors.se,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ASoC: amd: yc: Fix non-functional mic on Lenovo 82YM

On 10/2/2023 09:13, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 02.10.23 15:47, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 10/2/2023 06:52, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:32:48AM +0200, Linux regression tracking
>>> (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder: How many more such quirk entries will be needed? Will
>>>> we have all machines listed soon, or do we expect that future Lenovo
>>>> hardware will need entries as well? If it's the latter: are quirks
>>>> really the right solution here, or do they just hide some bug or then
>>>> need for code that automatically handles things?
>>>
>>> x86 firmware descriptions are terrible, it's just an endless procession
>>> of quirks.  The model for ACPI is not to describe key information in the
>>> kernel and instead on Windows load device specific information from
>>> separately supplied tables.  On Linux that translates into these endless
>>> quirks, on Windows it's platform specific drivers for otherwise generic
>>> audio hardware.
>>
>> I knew there was a TON of "82" prefix systems from Lenovo so it was an
>> educated guess that all of them needed DMIC support.  This was incorrect
>> because one of them didn't have DMIC and that caused a no mic support
>> problem on that system.
>>
>> So in the case of this seemingly endless list of systems being added to
>> enable DMIC support Mark is right, Windows does it differently.
> 
> Now I understand things better, many thx. But please allow me one more
> question from the cheap seats:
> 
> Seems before c008323fe361 things worked for a lot of systems for about
> one year thx to 2232b2dd8cd4 (which added the wide "82" prefix quirk).
> We then made that one machine work with c008323fe361, but broke a lot of
> others with it that now need to be fixed with additional quirks; that
> "TON of 82 prefix systems" sounds like we might not be close to the end
> of that journey.
> 
> So can't we just do it the other way around and assume DMIC support on
> Lenovo 82* machines, except on those where we know it to cause trouble?
> 
> Again: you are the experts here. If you are positive that we soon got
> all machines covered where c008323fe361 causes a regression, then I
> guess it's best to continue the patch we're on.

I don't like lists that enable something for a ton of systems and then 
lists that disable something for a subset of them.  This becomes 
difficult to maintain.

I'm not positive, but the only way we get a full list is from Lenovo.

> 
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
> --
> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.