On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:44:16PM +0900, HyeongJun An wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 05:23:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It seems like we should have a test that we can actually find this > > control, right now it looks like we silently ignore it being missing. > > Are all IEC958 controls supposed to have one of these? > I couldn't find anything saying they must. 32 of the 36 writable > Playback Defaults in the tree have a Con Mask, Pro Mask or Mask sibling, > 4 don't (fsl_spdif, fsl_xcvr, uniperif_player, stm32_sai_sub). The > driver docs only ask that mask and default share an iface, and > sound/core doesn't check. So unless there's a rule I'm missing I'll keep > the non audio guess for those and print that no mask was found, rather > than fail them. I dunno, if 32 of 36 have a mask that sounds more like there is a standard for all practical purposes but we've got a few drivers that could be improved to better implement things. This is quite common with mixer-test - we generally enforce things relatively laxly compared to the spec. It's probably more helpful all round to add the missing mixer controls. > One thing I'd like to check with you first. Failing on an advertised > bit that's dropped turns three drivers that pass today into failures: > au88x0 (mask says 0xff, put() reads only the FS bits), ice1712 on Delta > 1010 and Mediastation (mask 0xff, no put callback), and rme32 in > professional layout (mask advertises the whole emphasis field, the > converter reads one value). I think those are the mask not matching the > driver, which is the kind of thing the test is for, but I don't have > any of that hardware. I'll go with strict for v3 unless you'd rather > those were reported without failing. Happy to do either. Yes, I think this is a reasonable thing to add - like I was saying above it's realtively common given our lack of enforcement and general driver quality for us to see existing bugs. Hopefully someone with the hardware will notice and take a look, or if they don't perhaps it's not actually causing them problems anyway. Thanks for working on this!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
