Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:24:36 +0300 | Subject | Re: Fwd: Steam Deck OLED 6.8.2 nau8821-max fails | From | Cristian Ciocaltea <> |
| |
On 4/9/24 1:57 PM, Daniel Martin wrote: > The manual patches were worked from the Steam Deck kernel, trial & > error with partial support in 6.6 at the time. > 6.8 sources where this has been implemented recently were not yet > available or in linux-next. > Suffice to say the code matches up almost perfectly apart from the > enum issues which are thus being discussed. > I still go back to the point, apart from the Steam Deck, who else is > using this named topology file? > I don't think anyone is, therefore the enum numbering should match the > current Steam Deck kernel implementation & topology file.
The entries of enum be_id cannot be changed in mainline without breaking devices which are not part of the Steam Deck family.
I do not have additional details other than the information provided by AMD in the context of the initial patch submission:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/a3357e1f-f354-4d4b-9751-6b2182dceea6@amd.com/
> > On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 19:55, Cristian Ciocaltea > <cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/9/24 12:19 PM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>> On 09.04.24 10:47, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >>>> On 4/9/24 11:04 AM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>>>> On 09.04.24 09:42, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >>>>>> On 4/9/24 7:44 AM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>>>>>> On 09.04.24 01:44, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/7/24 10:47 AM, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 06.04.24 15:08, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Bugzilla, Daniel <dmanlfc@gmail.com> reported topology regression >>>>>>>>>> on Steam Deck OLED [1]. He wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm adding this here, I hope it's the correct place. >>>>>>>>>>> Currently the Steam Deck OLED fails with Kernel 6.8.2 when trying to initialise the topology for the device. >>>>>>>>>>> I'm using the `sof-vangogh-nau8821-max.tplg` file from the Steam Deck OLED and associated firmware. >>>>>>>>>> [1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218677 >>>>>>>>> A quick search made me find these posts/threads that foreshadow the problem: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231219030728.2431640-1-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com/ >>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/a3357e1f-f354-4d4b-9751-6b2182dceea6@amd.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From a quick look at the second discussion it seems a bit like we are >>>>>>>>> screwed, as iiutc topology files are out in the wild for one or the >>>>>>>>> other approach. So we might have to bite a bullet there and accept the >>>>>>>>> regression -- but I might easily be totally mistaken here. Would be good >>>>>>>>> in one of the experts (Venkata Prasad Potturu maybe?) could quickly >>>>>>>>> explain what's up here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem here is that Steam Deck OLED provides a topology file which >>>>>>>> uses an incorrect DAI link ID for BT codec. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Patch [1] moves BT_BE_ID to position 2 in the enum, as expected by the >>>>>>>> topology, but this is not a change that can be accepted upstream as it >>>>>>>> would break other devices which rely on BT_BE_ID set to 3. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proper solution would be to update the topology file on Steam Deck, >>>>>>>> but this is probably not straightforward to be accomplished as it would >>>>>>>> break the compatibility with the currently released (downstream) >>>>>>>> kernels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hopefully, this sheds some more light on the matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231209205351.880797-11-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Many thx, yes, this sheds some light on the matter. But there is one >>>>>>> remaining question: can we make both camps happy somehow? E.g. something >>>>>>> along the lines of "first detect if the topology file has BT_BE_ID in >>>>>>> position 2 or 3 and then act accordingly? >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, I have this on my TODOs list but haven't managed to dig into it >>>>>> yet. However, that would be most likely just another hack to be carried >>>>>> on until the transition to a fixed topology is completed. >>>>> >>>>> Well, sure it's a hack, but the thing is, our number one rule is "no >>>>> regressions" and the reporter apparently faces one (see start of the >>>>> thread). So to fulfill this rule it would be ideal to have a fix >>>>> available soonish or revert the culprit and reply it later together with >>>>> the fix. >>>> >>>> Hmm, unless I'm missing something, this shouldn't been considered a >>>> regression. As I explained previously, the OLED model was launched with >>>> a downstream implementation of the Vangogh SOF drivers on top of v6.1, >>>> as there was no upstream support back then. >>>> >>>> When AMD eventually completed the upstreaming process of their SOF >>>> drivers in v6.6, we ended up with this unfortunate ID assignments >>>> incompatibility. Hence I cannot see how the mainline kernel would have >>>> worked without applying patch [1] above, unless the reporter >>>> experimented with a different topology (which is not the case if I got >>>> this right). >>>> >>>>> Do we know which change that went into 6.8 caused this? Or is a revert >>>>> out-of-the question as it will likely break things for other users that >>>>> already upgraded to 6.8 and have a matching topology file? (/me fears >>>>> the answer to the latter question is "yes", but I have to ask :-/) >>>> >>>> We need to understand how the reporter got this working with mainline >>>> kernels without applying any out-of-tree patches. >>> >>> Ahh, okay, thx, now I understand this better. You are most likely >>> correct. It also made me look at the initial report again where I >>> noticed "When *I manually patched support* for the 6.6 or 6.7 mainline >>> kernel it worked fine.", so yes, this likely is not a regression. >> >> It would be interesting to find out what the *manually patched support* >> involved. FWIW, to get audio working with v6.8, it's also necessary to >> backport several patches from v6.9-rc1 - I would consider the following: >> >> Fixes: f0f1021fc9cb ("ASoC: amd: acp: Drop redundant initialization of machine driver data") >> Fixes: 68ab29426d88 ("ASoC: amd: acp: Make use of existing *_CODEC_DAI macros") >> Fixes: d0ada20279db ("ASoC: amd: acp: Add missing error handling in sof-mach") >> Fixes: 222be59e5eed ("ASoC: SOF: amd: Fix memory leak in amd_sof_acp_probe()") >> Fixes: a13f0c3c0e8f ("ASoC: SOF: amd: Optimize quirk for Valve Galileo") >> Fixes: 369b997a1371 ("ASoC: SOF: core: Skip firmware test for custom loaders") >> Fixes: d9cacc1a2af2 ("ASoC: SOF: amd: Compute file paths on firmware load") >> Fixes: 33c3d8133307 ("ASoC: SOF: amd: Move signed_fw_image to struct acp_quirk_entry") >> Fixes: 094d11768f74 ("ASoC: SOF: amd: Skip IRAM/DRAM size modification for Steam Deck OLED") >> >> I think most if not all of the mandatory fixes from the list above have been >> already included in the latest v6.8 stable updates, but I haven't actually >> tested. >> >>> >>> Thx for your help and sorry for the trouble I caused! >> >> No problem at all! >> >> Regards, >> Cristian > > >
| |