From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-180.mta0.migadu.com (out-180.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 141A327AC5C for ; Sun, 4 Jan 2026 09:29:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767518968; cv=none; b=h8Qx4+byuvQb2dd6elmjMoO0RRoQChwlJNBl/LZX+HIG8SqzmnHx5rWK4NjTaOeIRlOK7hc7nyp3p6tYWzz2r9WFjoTA0XWcmgy8KNtDCuEdrjBMJkWHW1cBXctkPI4QJuv6Pf5HUSgtLDQ3L0V2uTJqBiBqrmVs4RQtTuJmDtM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767518968; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SC35mJGYdWM8p2dbffxwY8WEyDF3XamGlcbv/0YMxng=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=iQhYFkMCmGrgTUmYIqlH9o66PBDGe3JI88juTQkWCNvM2wweTgf3J5w2TFEsQOqSQoKTupxMDfDkQE701iplT7zGfc+FZar6ZJYqqrJF32ZFQYt/g52n5kUEw67VVYCSl5YWO8O6c8JPZOqlVU1HTTohf64T2A1GONRJWzl2d1Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=lH730AWu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="lH730AWu" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1767518962; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RmfHKR3WkakqFhp/KjzQuDDI91MgrnU8fDNhAQ457T0=; b=lH730AWuGzNeGVdZeOvu7XTYxx2HbYvYEbppx9udKwrdN2vAX32A1/3CbHh92rv2MILO3L L6dXtKiSvxXEmanUhFfr3ZlT7+BQ+dPOACmipAVxC362r//4S54fKge1/Ny2AihCEuDh3w 4coW4Q8DYFVslyN1RguNGMiutYfeRRo= Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2026 01:29:17 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [BUG] hda/tas2781: ASUS ROG Xbox Ally X audio issues with default firmware To: "Xu, Baojun" , Antheas Kapenekakis Cc: "Ding, Shenghao" , "linux-sound@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tiwai@suse.de" References: <0ba100d0-9b6f-4a3b-bffa-61abe1b46cd5@linux.dev> <2d8b782c-a97c-4521-9307-a2cf8934802a@linux.dev> <288f6482-9a6b-4362-ac97-18043659deb7@linux.dev> <09148B42-71C2-4428-8D21-903F85853091@linux.dev> <0b18b97f-a5dc-4f24-9716-e1eb26ac85af@linux.dev> <160aef32646c4d5498cbfd624fd683cc@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Matthew Schwartz In-Reply-To: <160aef32646c4d5498cbfd624fd683cc@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 1/4/26 12:58 AM, Xu, Baojun wrote: > Hi Antheas, > > It may known issue which relative with calibration result. > Could you try to remove calibration result apply, and check if the problem still exist? > For example, mask below line (line number is 494) in tasdevice_dspfw_init() from tas2781-hda-i2c.c: > > hda_priv->save_calibration(tas_hda); > > Best Regards > Jim Hi Jim, Thanks for the reply. Antheas does not have hardware affected by this issue, but I can confirm that this fixes the problem on my own device. Matt > ________________________________________ > From: Antheas Kapenekakis > Sent: 03 January 2026 19:48 > To: Matthew Schwartz > Cc: Xu, Baojun; Ding, Shenghao; linux-sound@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; tiwai@suse.de > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [BUG] hda/tas2781: ASUS ROG Xbox Ally X audio issues with default firmware > > On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 at 02: 31, Matthew Schwartz wrote: > > On 1/2/26 3: 13 PM, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 at 21: 17, Matthew Schwartz > > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe. > > Report Suspicious > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 at 02:31, Matthew Schwartz > wrote: >> >> On 1/2/26 3:13 PM, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote: >>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 at 21:17, Matthew Schwartz >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/2/26 9:12 AM, Antheas Kapenekakis wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 at 22:44, Matthew Schwartz >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2025, at 8:00 PM, Matthew Schwartz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> - snip >>>>>>> 2.52.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> After reading the TI E2E forums, it seems these calibration tuning configurations are only meant to be used during a calibration process. >>>>> >>>>> A source would be good here, a link or two >>>> >>>> Sorry about that, here is where I read about the differences between the two configs: >>>> https://e2e.ti.com/support/audio-group/audio/f/audio-forum/1558310/tas2563-what-is-the-difference-between-tuning-and-calibration-configuration-in-exported-smartamp-binary >>> >>> This link describes "calibration" configurations that are used in the >>> calibration procedure. It is not clear to me that it refers to the >>> calibration parameters exported by UEFI or in the configuration itself >>> to be used alongside a configuration. I would tend toward this being >>> irrelevant. >>> >>>> It's about a different amplifier model, but I assume the same applies to tas2781 given the naming structure is the same for the configurations. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Instead, something else I found that works is not overriding the firmware file calibration data with the UEFI calibration data: >>> >>> I misunderstood what you meant by this before. I thought you meant >>> that the firmware overrode the UEFI data, not the other way around. >>> Surely, using the dummy data in the firmware file is better than using >>> incorrect data from UEFI. However, the manufacturer calibrated data >>> from the factory floor for each specific unit is in UEFI, so that is >>> what should be used. >>> >>>>> I did not look into the source code, do you have any reference in the >>>>> ACPI TAS code that r0_buf is prefilled with UEFI data? >>>> >>>> From what I understand, I think the current flow goes like this: >>>> >>>> 1. During driver init, tas2781_save_calibration() reads UEFI calibration data into the cali_data memory buffer and sets is_user_space_calidata=true: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/sound/hda/codecs/side-codecs/tas2781_hda.c*L162-L173__;Iw!!G3vK!U3mEJNuRpB9ZxVAGZZCyoMNqMnAl4M1N8YoxbHiMHIsF-13h4Wg_fbVfd008drQfvgstYyA1aQnWHw$ >>>> >>>> 2. When switching to a DSP config, tasdevice_select_tuningprm_cfg() calls tasdevice_load_data() which writes the firmware configuration, including any calibration values embedded in that config: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-fmwlib.c*L2510__;Iw!!G3vK!U3mEJNuRpB9ZxVAGZZCyoMNqMnAl4M1N8YoxbHiMHIsF-13h4Wg_fbVfd008drQfvgstYyDJTrchbQ$ >>>> >>>> 3. Immediately after, tasdev_load_calibrated_data() writes the UEFI calibration data from step 1, overwriting the values just set in step 2: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/9b043680446067358913edc2e9dd71bf8ffae208/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-fmwlib.c*L2392-L2428__;Iw!!G3vK!U3mEJNuRpB9ZxVAGZZCyoMNqMnAl4M1N8YoxbHiMHIsF-13h4Wg_fbVfd008drQfvgstYyBeYnGr_w$ + https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-fmwlib.c*L2519__;Iw!!G3vK!U3mEJNuRpB9ZxVAGZZCyoMNqMnAl4M1N8YoxbHiMHIsF-13h4Wg_fbVfd008drQfvgstYyBz8-7Z6g$ >>>> >>>> I confirmed this this by inserting some debug logs around tasdev_load_calibrated_data: >>> >>> I went through the code. It loads the UEFI data, sets >>> is_user_space_calidata=1, then if the data is available it loads it. >>> This is correct. >>> >>> To me this seems like the calibration data for amp 1 is written to >>> both amp 1 and amp 2, and for your firmware this breaks amp2. >> >> If this were the case, shouldn't my debug logs have the same data being written to dev 0 and dev 1? >> >> [ 6.367380] tas2781-hda i2c-TXNW2781:00-tas2781-hda.0: tasdev_load_calibrated_data: dev 0 writing calibration: r0_reg=0x000ce4 data=3c5f7222 >> [ 6.371718] tas2781-hda i2c-TXNW2781:00-tas2781-hda.0: tasdev_load_calibrated_data: dev 1 writing calibration: r0_reg=0x000ce4 data=3c90e72d >> >>> >>> In tasdev_load_calibrated_data(), an i index is provided, but >>> cali_data is nested under priv. So only one calibration set is >>> supported. This means that amp 2 gets amp 1 calibrations. >>> >>> Perhaps there is a "SmartAmpCalibrationData2" that should be read >>> instead for amp 2 instead, can you dump the EFI variables and check? >> >> (128)(deck@steamdeck ~)$ ls /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/ >> AmdAcpiVar-79941ecd-ed36-49d0-8124-e4c31ac75cd4 BugCheckProgress-ba57e015-65b3-4c3c-b274-659192f699e3 MemoryOverwriteRequestControl-e20939be-32d4-41be-a150-897f85d49829 >> >> There's only one EFI var that seems to be for calibration data: >> >> xxd /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/CALI_DATA-1f52d2a1-bb3a-457d-bc09-43a3f4310a92: >> >> 00000000: 0700 0000 dd0a 0000 0300 0000 7e4a 9d68 ............~J.h >> 00000010: 0000 0000 2272 5f3c d515 f610 ac9a 9b2e ...."r_<........ >> 00000020: 5d91 9600 0000 8025 0100 0000 2de7 903c ]......%....-..< >> 00000030: 283c e810 ffc8 c12e fcce 9600 0000 8025 (<.............% >> 00000040: 8000 0000 0000 1964 0000 1974 0000 197c .......d...t...| >> 00000050: 0000 1560 0000 1a70 eb7f b12b ...`...p...+ > > I reviewed the loader for CALI_DATA, it supports multiple device > calibration data and indexes it currently. In addition, it has two > versions with CRC checks that pass, so one of those versions loads the > data correctly. > > So everything looks technically correct > > Here is your data from the first amp reordered: > r0_reg=0x000ce4 408f5c29 > r0_reg=0x000ce4 3c5f7222 > invr0_reg=0x000cf4 0fdc788c > invr0_reg=0x000cf4 10f615d5 > r0_low_reg=0x000cfc 0f7e9100 > r0_low_reg=0x000cfc 2e9b9aac > pow_reg=0x000ae0 009b5281 > pow_reg=0x000ae0 0096915d > tlimit_reg=0x000d70 25800000 > tlimit_reg=0x000d70 25800000 > > And the second amp: > r0_reg=0x000ce4 40cccccd > r0_reg=0x000ce4 3c90e72d > invr0_reg=0x000cf4 0fcd6e9e > invr0_reg=0x000cf4 10e83c28 > r0_low_reg=0x000cfc 0f8d4fdf > r0_low_reg=0x000cfc 2ec1c8ff > pow_reg=0x000ae0 009b9c58 > pow_reg=0x000ae0 0096cefc > tlimit_reg=0x000d70 25800000 > tlimit_reg=0x000d70 25800000 > > There is a large deviation in r0, invr0, and r0_low in both of them. > Unfortunately, I do not have my Xbox Ally non-X to check to see if > it's incorrect. This hints to me that the registers get incorrect data > loaded, so there might be a mistake in the UEFI parser. > > Here is a breakdown of your efivar > 0700 0000 # This is not supposed to be here / Might have been thrown > out by kernel if v2 loads > > dd0a 0000 # 2781, is v2 protocol > 0300 0000 # Data-Group-Sum / How many nodes > 7e4a 9d68 # Timestamp > > # First amplifier data > 0000 0000 > 2272 5f3c # r0 > d515 f610 # invr0 > ac9a 9b2e # r0_low > 5d91 9600 # pow > 0000 8025 # tlimit > > # Second amplifier data > 0100 0000 > 2de7 903c # r0 > 283c e810 # invr0 > ffc8 c12e # r0_low > fcce 9600 # pow > 0000 8025 # tlimit > > 8000 0000 # Calibration data / Derivation logic in TASDEVICE_REG > 0000 1964 # r0 addr > 0000 1974 # invr0 addr > 0000 197c # r0_low addr > 0000 1560 # pow addr > 0000 1a70 # tlimit addr > > eb7f b12b # CRC32 > > Specifically for the 0x80, cali_reg addresses get stored into > r0/invr0... iff p->dspbin_typ == TASDEV_BASIC. > > I suspect the problem here is that the UEFI override for the first > three values tries to change different registers and not r0, invr0 and > r0_low. The pow, tlimit look correct. > > But, due to p->dspbin_typ != TASDEV_BASIC, cali_reg ends up being > thrown out and the UEFI values end up corrupting the r0, invr0 and > r0_low default addresses. and not 00, 19, 64/74/7c > > Antheas > >>> >>> In that case, a minor refactor to move cali_data and >>> is_user_space_calidata from priv to priv->tasdevice[i] and then use >>> the proper efi var would fix this. >>> >>> Antheas >>> >>>> [ 3.908963] tas2781-hda i2c-TXNW2781:00-tas2781-hda.0: tas2781_apply_calib: dspbin_typ=2, ndev=2, Setting is_user_space_calidata=true >>>> >>>> >>>> where it loads the UEFI calibration over top of the firmware calibration. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It could be that there is a specific priority, where UEFI data is >>>>> supposed to be loaded after the firmware code, replacing the >>>>> calibration data from the file, or that is what is done in Windows. >>>>> But here it is done the other way. In that case, it might be more >>>>> appropriate to set a dummy var such as bool uefi_calib that becomes 1 >>>>> when loading calibration from UEFI, and skip loading from the fw file >>>>> if available. >>>>> >>>>> But links, etc. Here, this would affect all TAS devices too, so it is >>>>> more major. >>>> >>>> Yes, was really hoping to get TI's feedback before potentially sending it out, as it would be a major change and the documentation on this is scarce. I could also be misunderstanding the calibration data load flow, but this is just from poking at this issue from every angle I can think of. >>>> >>>> Happy new year, >>>> Matt >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Happy new year, >>>>> Antheas >>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-fmwlib.c b/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-fmwlib.c >>>>>> index 78fd0a5dc6f2..1e768e6187da 100644 >>>>>> --- a/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-fmwlib.c >>>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-fmwlib.c >>>>>> @@ -2377,6 +2377,7 @@ static void tasdev_load_calibrated_data(struct tasdevice_priv *priv, int i) >>>>>> unsigned char *data = cali_data->data; >>>>>> struct tasdevice_calibration *cal; >>>>>> int k = i * (cali_data->cali_dat_sz_per_dev + 1); >>>>>> + unsigned char r0_buf[4]; >>>>>> int rc; >>>>>> >>>>>> /* Load the calibrated data from cal bin file */ >>>>>> @@ -2389,6 +2390,20 @@ static void tasdev_load_calibrated_data(struct tasdevice_priv *priv, int i) >>>>>> } >>>>>> if (!priv->is_user_space_calidata) >>>>>> return; >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* >>>>>> + * Check if the DSP config already set the calibration registers. >>>>>> + * Some tuning configs contain their own calibration data which should >>>>>> + * not be overwritten by user space calibration data. >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> + rc = tasdevice_dev_bulk_read(priv, i, p->r0_reg, r0_buf, 4); >>>>>> + if (rc >= 0 && (r0_buf[0] | r0_buf[1] | r0_buf[2] | r0_buf[3])) { >>>>>> + dev_dbg(priv->dev, >>>>>> + "%s: dev %d r0_reg already set by config, skipping calibration\n", >>>>>> + __func__, i); >>>>>> + return; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>>> /* load calibrated data from user space */ >>>>>> if (data[k] != i) { >>>>>> dev_err(priv->dev, "%s: no cal-data for dev %d from usr-spc\n", >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this more suitable to be upstreamed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Matt >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > >