Re: [PATCH v4 00/17] ASoC: Intel: haswell and broadwell boards update

[Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>]

>>> Thanks for the report! However, this has been reported earlier during
>>> the v2 review [1]. This is also why a fix have been provided [2] earlier
>>> today. Notice that shape of link->exit() found here is shared by other
>>> Intel boards e.g.: SOF ones. In general, the initial discussion
>>> regarding card->remove() revealed some 'probe vs remove' problems within
>>> the framework.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/69e4263a-e036-cb21-2360-55b06600911e@intel.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> [2]:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/alsa-devel/1cff4ac0-6d45-95e1-ed9f-6abaded3f8b7@intel.com/T/#t
>>>
>>
>> It's rather difficult to follow these changes and error reports buried
>> in email report sent on a Sunday of a three-day week-end for me.
>> I also had additional errors not reported,
>>
>> [   36.125113] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: unknown pin HV
>> [   36.125128] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: unknown pin VREF
>> [   36.125130] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: unknown pin LDO1
>> [   36.125921] kernel: rt286 i2c-INT343A:00: ASoC: DAPM unknown pin LDO1
>>
>> it's unclear to me why a dailink change in a machine driver would cause
>> such codec-side issues.
>>
>> If the changes in this 17-patch series need to be tied to a framework
>> fix, you have to make the dependencies explicit and better yet provide a
>> self-contained patch series that does not introduce a temporary
>> regression, or introduce the framework change first and clearly describe
>> the dependency in a longer Broadwell-specific patchset. This is an 8-yr
>> old device, it shouldn't be that hard.
> 
> 
> The last part is not helpful in solving the problem.
> 
> This reply comments 00/17 whereas in fact you are speaking solely about
> 16/17. Because of that I'm suggesting: leave that patch (the 16/17 one)
> out when merging. It will be send later once link->exit() issue is dealt
> with. All other patches are independent of either of changes.

That's fine with me. It wasn't self-explanatory from this cover letter
or your earlier answer that this patch 16 can be dropped for now. If
that patch is omitted, feel free to add my

Tested-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>


> Simultaneously the link->exit() fix, which is the fruit of this
> discussion, is still valid and can be send as standalone patch - what is
> already the case [1].

That's fine as well. What I was arguing on is the relationship between
patchsets and dependencies, what you are suggesting is perfectly acceptable.