From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dr Nicholas J Bailey Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ALSA: snd-usb-usx2y: remove bogus frame checks Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:20:29 +0100 Message-ID: <1715855.gPWHk3iGiy@arial> References: <1380728990-8443-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <5252D48D.5060608@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hillend.cent.gla.ac.uk (hillend.cent.gla.ac.uk [130.209.16.102]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE05265160 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 18:25:15 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <5252D48D.5060608@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Daniel Mack Cc: Takashi Iwai , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Guido Aulisi List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Monday 07 October 2013 16:34:37 you wrote: > On 07.10.2013 17:35, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:11:44 +0200, > > > > Daniel Mack wrote: > >> On 07.10.2013 16:58, Dr Nicholas J Bailey wrote: > >>> For me, this patch alone fails in much the same way (possibly exactly > >>> the same way) as before the previous patch. > >>> > >>> From audacity (probably not much use unless you know the source code... > >>> I > >> > >>> don't): > >> [...] > >> > >>> nick@arial:/usr/src$ dmesg | tail > >>> [ 111.667015] usb 2-1.6.4: New USB device strings: Mfr=0, Product=0, > >>> SerialNumber=0 > >>> [ 114.707156] Sequence Error!(hcd_frame=3 ep=8in;wait=1024,frame=0). > >>> [ 114.707156] Most probably some urb of usb-frame 1024 is still > >>> missing. > >> > >> You certainly haven't booted a kernel which contains the patch we're > >> talking about here. The only occurance of the error message you quote > >> was removed by this patch, so a patched kernel can't possibly produce > >> what you see in your logs. > > > > Nicholas booted a kernel without your fix patch but only with my patch > > to disable the -EPIPE check, in order to see whether the latter alone > > suffices or not. So he's testing with a right kernel :) > > Oh, so *I* was referring to the wrong patch then. > Apologies for causing confusion :) > > > Daniel That's cool, Daniel. Actually, I've not written anything for the kernel since 1.x (it was an intravascular ultrasound board my PhD student built - it was a hardware project and the sorfware was never distributed). Things have changed a *lot* since then, and I never used make-dpkg before this, so please keep on checking I do the right thing! The only thing I *might* have screwed up is that both the kernels are called 3.10.11 as far as uname -a is concerned, but are in separate debs. So the patch which took out static void usX2Y_error_sequence( struct usX2Ydev *usX2Y, struct snd_usX2Y_substream *subs, struct urb *urb) and the bit about if (likely((urb->start_frame & 0xFFFF) == (usX2Y->wait_iso_frame & 0xFFFF))) subs->completed_urb = urb; else { usX2Y_error_sequence(usX2Y, subs, urb); return; } are in a deb called linux-image-3.10.11_3.10.11.TASCAM.2_i386.deb and the one with Takashi's cpp directive /only/ based on a fresh source tree from the debian source package is in linux-image-3.10.11_3.10.11.TASCAM.3_i386.deb I'm installing the package I want to play with, and there's a message to say I should reboot ASAP because of potential module conflicts, and that when I do the machine will recompute the mod deps for me, so I do, and that's that. Probably a bit of a hack, but I don't think it's stupidly wrong (unless you know different). Bottom line is: TASCAM.2 works with no complaints; TASCAM.3 (with just the #if 0...#endif and no other changes to 3.10.11) gives the stalls and dmesg messages. The only other thing I changed was the processor. I selected core2 because I thought it would be nice to have a custom kernel for once :) I hope I've not been wasting your time. Nick/.