Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Correct modules for Bay Trail MAX98090 soc? | From | Pierre-Louis Bossart <> | Date | Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:37:11 -0500 |
| |
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.
| |