Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Correctly use TX macro v9.4 for SC7280 / Kodiak

[Luca Weiss]

Hi Srini,

On Fri Sep 18, 2026 at 10:34 PM CEST, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>
> On 5/26/26 4:29 PM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>> As a bit of a note where I'm coming from, I'm working on microphone
>> bringup for qcm6490-fairphone-fp5 where so far we've been using
>> qcom,sm8450-lpass-tx-macro to get the correct control names. I've tried
>> reverting to sc7280-lpass-tx-macro, updating audio-routing in dts and
>> UCM to the v9.0 names and it does seem that microphone (AMIC1) is
>> working with that, but I'm not particularly happy about leaving the
>> wrong control names everywhere, so I'm happy to try and untangle this
>> situation.
> Are you referring to the enum values that go into "TX SMIC MUX" mixer
> control?

Yep.

>
> if this is the problem, i think we could use values instead of enum in
> your setup. They do endup in the same register.

I mean technically we can also use the incorrect v9 names in dts & UCM,
and they resolve to the same register values in the end.

> However I do acknowledge the issue.
>
> pl let me know your thoughts.

My preferred solution would be cleaning this up completely, as in change
to v9.2 and update dts and upstream UCM configs to the 'correct' values.

I do understand that this will likely not be accepted due to
backwards/forwards compatibility issues that kernel people want to avoid.

The most straightforward path I see is add a new compatible which uses
&lpass_ver_9_2 and can be used by boards that have been added before,
while new boards can use the new compatible.
This is suggestion (2) in my original email.

>
>> 
>> I'm also not sure where this v9.x actually comes from, maybe I'm lacking
>> some documentation, downstream kernel only refers to Bolero v1.x and
>> v2.x so these seems to be a completely different versioning system.
> Am not sure how we ended up using lpass versions instead of codec
> version in tx, this is a redundant to codec version. I want to clean
> that up at somepoint.

I don't understand this whole versioning anyways because there's afaik
no public reference what SoC has which versions, feels quite arbitrary
to me.

If you have some internal references and can sort this out, that'd be
appreciated.

Regards
Luca

>
> --srini
>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>