Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ALSA: hda: Rework snd_hdac_stream_reset() to use macros

[Jon Hunter]

On 05/10/2022 15:07, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2022 15:52:01 +0200,
> Jon Hunter wrote:
> > On 05/10/2022 13:29, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > HDA playback is failing on -next for various Tegra boards. Bisect is
> > > > point to this commit and reverting it fixes the problem. I was a bit
> > > > puzzled why this change is causing a problem, but looking closer there
> > > > is a difference between the previous code that was calling
> > > > snd_hdac_stream_readb() and the new code that is calling
> > > > snd_hdac_stream_readb_poll(). The function snd_hdac_stream_readb()
> > > > calls snd_hdac_aligned_mmio() is see if the device has an aligned MMIO
> > > > which Tegra does and then would call snd_hdac_aligned_read(). However,
> > > > now the code always call readb() and this is breaking Tegra.
> > > >
> > > > So it is either necessary to update snd_hdac_stream_readb_poll() to
> > > > handle this or revert this change.
> > >
> > > Does the patch below work?
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > Takashi
> > >
> > > -- 8< --
> > > --- a/include/sound/hdaudio.h
> > > +++ b/include/sound/hdaudio.h
> > > @@ -592,8 +592,8 @@ int snd_hdac_get_stream_stripe_ctl(struct hdac_bus *bus,
> > >    #define snd_hdac_stream_readb(dev, reg) \
> > >    	snd_hdac_reg_readb((dev)->bus, (dev)->sd_addr + AZX_REG_ ## reg)
> > >    #define snd_hdac_stream_readb_poll(dev, reg, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
> > > -	readb_poll_timeout((dev)->sd_addr + AZX_REG_ ## reg, val, cond, \
> > > -			   delay_us, timeout_us)
> > > +	read_poll_timeout(snd_hdac_reg_readb, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us,\
> > > +			  false, (dev)->bus, (dev)->sd_addr + AZX_REG_ ## reg)
> > >    #define snd_hdac_stream_readl_poll(dev, reg, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
> > >    	readl_poll_timeout((dev)->sd_addr + AZX_REG_ ## reg, val, cond, \
> > >    			   delay_us, timeout_us)
> >
> >
> > Amazingly it does not work. I would have thought that would, but it
> > does not. I am a bit puzzled by that?
>
> Interesting, it must be a subtle difference.
> What about passing true?  It seems that the original code has the
> udelay(3) before the loop.


I wondered the same and tried that, but still not working.

Jon

--
nvpublic