From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id C0DF5E007CD; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:16:15 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (mail.mlbassoc.com [65.100.170.105]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142EBE005B4 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id BC4A9F811DE; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:16:02 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.1.114] (zeus [192.168.1.114]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF62BF811DC; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:16:01 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <54C15A94.6050102@mlbassoc.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:16:20 -0700 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org References: <54BED2E8.70901@mail.bg> <54BEF411.9080503@mail.bg> <54BF0F40.6030407@mail.bg> <54C03C72.3050502@mail.bg> <54C0F9FE.6020208@mlbassoc.com> <54C14241.4090805@mail.bg> <54C1430A.6050303@mlbassoc.com> <54C149E5.6040303@boundarydevices.com> <54C14DCD.1060809@mlbassoc.com> <54C15387.4020806@mlbassoc.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Audio glitch with SGTL5000 X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:16:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2015-01-22 12:49, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Gary Thomas wrote: > >> Nevermind - I rebuilt my image today and the sound is back. >> >> That said, it brings up an interesting issue. I'm running the >> same kernel on two i.MX6 boards - the SabreLite and one of my >> company's internal design which is _almost_ identical. The SGTL5000 >> setup is identical. My SabreLite does not have a pop, but my other >> board does. I wonder what could be the difference? They do have >> slightly different i.MX6 silicon (not sure about the SGTL5000). >> SabreLite = i.MX6Q rev 1.0, My board = i.MX6Q rev 1.2 > > Do you get the pop on your board if you use the workaround patch that > Nikolay is using? > I haven't seen it - was it sent to this list? I'd be happy to try it as the behaviour on this one board is very consistent and pronounced. -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------