At Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:32:12 +0100,
Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 01:28:03PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > I have no idea how big the soundblaster microcode being loaded actually
> > > > is,
> > > > that is if the reduced size of 0x1f00 will be sufficient.
> > >
> > > The files found in /lib/firmware/sb16 are all under 2kB, thus likely
> > > sufficient.
> > Too shortly answered. It turned out that some CSP codes (like Qsound)
> > can be above that size, it's almost 12kB. So the size in the original
> > code is really the necessary requirement, and the patch breaks for
> > such a case.
> > An ugly workaround would be to fake the ioctl size. But this is
> > certainly to be avoided, since it has been broken on the specific
> > platforms for ages, thus breaking for them would be mostly harmless,
> > too.
> > > > Aside of that I
> > > > don't see a problem - I don't see how the old ioctl can possibly have
> > > > been
> > > > used before so there isn't a compatibility problem.
> > > >
> > > > Or you could entirely sidestep the problem and use request_firmware()
> > > > but
> > > > I guess that's more effort than you want to invest.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's another option I thought of. But it's too intrusive for
> > > 3.0-rc6, so I'd like waive it for 3.1.
> > Actually the request_firmware() was implemented for some auto-loadable
> > CSP codes. Others need the manual loading, so it is via ioctl. It
> > can be converted, but I don't think it makes sense for such old
> > stuff. After all, it still works with x86-ISA as is.
> In userland an empty definition will be used for _IOC_TYPECHECK so there
> won't be an error. So userland already is already using the existing
> value for SNDRV_SB_CSP_IOCTL_LOAD_CODE ...
Right. It has an invalid direction (3), but apps won't care such
> With a crude hack like
> #define SNDRV_SB_CSP_IOCTL_LOAD_CODE \
> _IOC(_IOC_WRITE,'H', 0x11, sizeof(struct snd_sb_csp_microcode))
> error checking can be bypassed and all will be fine as long as the
> resulting value doesn't result in in a a duplicate case value - which it
> doesn't, at least not in my testing.
> Should work but isn't nice.
Indeed. But which is uglier is hard to answer :)
If you are fine with the hacked ioctl number above, I can put it
with some comments. This won't break anything, at least.