Re: Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc?

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 8/12/16 4:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:31:27PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> > On 8/11/16 3:42 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> > > which changed the dependencies for CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH.
> > > The set of options Fedora selects means that
> > > CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH
> > > can't be selected. Is there another driver that's supposed to replace
> > > CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_BYT_MAX98090_MACH on Bay Trail or do the dependencies
> > > need to be updated? The bugzilla has alsa-info for working and non-
> > > working cases and the Fedora config is attached.
>
> > If you remove support for all other baytrail options this driver should
> > still be there and selectable. We just can't support both this driver for
> > Chromebooks and the rest for other machines with the same distribution at
> > the moment.
>
> That sounds like a regression, what's the plan to fix it.

The simple fix is easy: disable all other codecs and the
BYT_MAX98090 option will be enabled. BYT_MAX98090 relies on the 'old' 
non-dpcm driver which is used only for Chromebooks with Baytrail, which 
never enable any other codecs, so there was never any issue before.
If there is a need for concurrency, then a new machine driver based on 
the dpcm Atom driver needs to be created. I don't have a Baytrail 
chromebook so don't want to commit on the change.