From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Mack Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ALSA: snd-usb-usx2y: remove bogus frame checks Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 17:34:37 +0200 Message-ID: <5252D48D.5060608@gmail.com> References: <1380728990-8443-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1381048163.1974.5.camel@yoda.heavyware> <27085905.a7dazzfD9V@arial> <5252CF30.7030002@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f48.google.com (mail-bk0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A4826516E for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:34:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id my13so2690237bkb.35 for ; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 08:34:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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: Takashi Iwai Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , Guido Aulisi , Dr Nicholas J Bailey List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org 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