Re: 2.6.24-rc7, intel audio: alsa doesn't say a beep

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:46:58 +0100,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> 
> Dear Takashi-san,
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > 
> > The "regression" was your original problem, no sound on rc7, which was
> > fixed by reverting the patch.  Now I'd like to know that my new patch
> > doesn't break after reverting the broken patch.
> > 
> 
> Seems that there was some misunderstanding: I thought your patch
> for sigmatel.c was supposed to fix the "missing sound" problem,
> too.
> 
> > In short, try my patch on the latest Linus git tree.  Check whether
> > the sound still works.
> > 
> 
> It does.
> 
> rc7 plus the big "clean-up" patch for sigmatel.c plus hda_intel.c
> taken from rc6 worked, too. Seems that I missed to mention it in a
> previous EMail.

OK, thanks.  Then I'll queue this clean-up patch to ALSA tree.

> > It's simply a delay.  Basically Ingo's patch changed msleep() to
> > udelay() to reduce *unneeded* delays.  The function waits until the
> > all pending commands are processed.  The delay is simply to reduce the
> > system load.  And, now, changing this delay causes a problem
> > surprisingly.
> > 
> 
> I am glad to help, but could you please do me a favour? If I am
> supposed to try some new version, then please create a complete(!)
> patch using rc7 on kernel.org as the base, and send it as an
> attachment using a unique filename. Very likely you have a much
> better overview about the most recent kernel changes, but some
> statements like "new patch" or "Ingo's patch" don't mean very much
> to me. The "reverted" patch is a new patch, too, and AFAIK Ingo
> reverted it, so maybe you can imagine that this is highly confusing.

There are three patches.
- Ingo's patch to reduce latency.  This was applied after rc6, and
  reverted after rc7.
- My first test patch
- My second test patch (clean-up patch you tested lastly)

>  >> AFAICS I did use the mm branch. The command to grab the sources was
>  >>
>  >> git-clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perex/alsa.git mm
>  >>
>  >> Is this correct?
>  >
>  > No.  You'd better to clone Linus git tree, then pull from alsa.git mm
>  > branch.
>  >
>  >   % git-clone $LINUS/linux-2.6.git
>  >   % cd linux-2.6
>  >   % git-pull $ALSA/alsa.git mm
>  >
> 
> AFAICS there shouldn't be a difference to my one-liner, unless Linus'
> and Alsa's git trees are out of sync. Is this correct?

No, the second argument of git-clone is the destination directory to 
clone, not the branch to pick up.  The cloned repo has all branches
but doesn't point mm branch.

And, Linus and ALSA git trees are likely out of sync.


Takashi