Bug 741825 (Broken recording/jack sense on recent ATI/AMD chipsets) - next step
On 14.06.2011 15:18, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 2011-05-27 17:55, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 05/26/2011 11:53 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
>>> So, as some of you know, I've been working with bug 741825 for a while
>>> and thanks to our OEM/HWE team we're now quite certain that running an
>>> upstream snapshot of the alsa driver modules solves the problem. I'm now
>>> trying to SRU this into Natty.
>>> I'm attaching three fixes which I believe is what's needed to apply on
>>> top of natty to fix this problem, but I'd like verification. Note that
>>> nr 2 is to enable the Hudson chipset, which is also baked into this
>>> Testing is easiest done using the following procedure:
>>> 1) Start off with a fresh Natty install with nothing but natty-updates
>>> installed. In particular, make sure the latest ALSA drivers are *not*
>>> installed (modinfo snd-hda-codec should say
>>> 2) Install the attached deb and reboot.
>>> 3) Test both internal and external mic. Even though mics should
>>> autoswitch for the three below (I think), make sure the right mic is
>>> selected in gnome-volume-control so you control the volume of the right
>>> input. Testing for a larger period of time doesn't hurt here, e g you
>>> could leave gnome-volume-control on the input tab, go away a few
>>> minutes, then come back and notice that the level bar is still moving
>>> when you speak into the microphone.
>>> 4) When the above test is done, also test automute (speaker mutes when
>>> headphones plugged in). This is something that could start to fail after
>>> a while which is why this test should be done after the previous test.
>>> 5) If the machine does not work, please supply the output of "cat
>>> /proc/interrupts" and an alsa-info (wiki.ubuntu.com/Audio/AlsaInfo).
>>> If I'd make a wish, I'd like this to be tested on
>>> * One or two machines with the SB700/SB800 chipset
>>> * One or two machines with the Hudson chipset
>>> * One or two machines with an older ATI chipset, as this might impact
>>> them as well. This is to test for regressions, although I suspect that
>>> we actually improve the situation for them as well.
>>> Again, thanks for helping out!
>> David - these patches all look fine, and appear appropriate for SRU. I'd
>> like to see a minor administrative change to the first 2 patches (which
>> appear to be clean cherry picks). Please use 'git cherry-pick -x -s'
>> when plucking the patch so that it preserves the original SHA1 and also
>> applies your s-o-b. The 3rd patch has an appropriate 'backported from
>> SHA1' notice in it.
>> If you're gone for vacation, then whomever applies these patches can
>> make those minor changes.
> Seems nobody was driving the issue while I was on vacation, so I'm resending my
> patches, the first two cherrypicked to adhere to your preference. Meanwhile, the
> first patch was actually sent to stable and has been added to the 2.6.38.y tree.
> Seems the second one was not.
> But I'd still like some testing if possible. Would any of the two Chris:es be
> able to help?
So we should have #1 through upstream stable, #2 and #3 not and those need to
get SRUed after #1 is pulled in. I don't think there will be another update to
.38.y after .39 is out, so we are not expecting to get the other two from there.
Both other patches look ok, for SRU, just seem to miss the BugLink (which could
be added when picking them).
Acked-by: Stefan Bader <email@example.com>
kernel-team mailing list