Audio on Sunblade 100

[Gheorghe Ardelean]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Marius Strobl wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:07:44PM +0200, Gheorghe Ardelean wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> Thanks for the dumps!
>
>>
>>> From all this dumps all I can see is that on my Blade100s there are some
>> bytes in the isab0 at pci... dumps which are different from what the Christian
>> has:
>>
>> ardelean at ahorn:~> diff -u pciconf-myconfig1.txt pciconf-christian.txt
>> --- pciconf-myconfig1.txt      2009-08-24 11:24:52.758524000 +0200
>> +++ pciconf-christian.txt      2009-08-24 11:25:30.791166000 +0200
>>
>> -00 00 06 00 41 03 00 d3  04 02 00 04 00 00 01 10
>> +00 00 06 00 41 03 00 d3  04 02 00 02 00 00 01 10
>>
>> and the boot verbose part:
>>
>> -pcm0: sndbuf_setmap c1140000, 10000; 0xc0c62000 -> c1140000
>> -pcm0: sndbuf_setmap c1160000, 10000; 0xc0c82000 -> c1160000
>> +pcm0: sndbuf_setmap c1140000, 10000; 0xc0c50000 -> c1140000
>> +pcm0: sndbuf_setmap c1160000, 10000; 0xc0c70000 -> c1160000
>>
>
> The interesing bits here are the leftmost and the rightmost
> columns which contain the DVMA addresses. Aa they are
> indentical on both machines, incorrect bus_dma(9) parameters
> can be ruled out as a cause for the problem Christian is
> seeing.
>
>> So one can see that there are differences in the output of isab0 at pci
>> dump and also in the dmesg. In the case of Christian this diference is
>> at bye offset 0x79 (one byte). In my case the difference is at
>> byteoffset 0x82 (two bytes).
>
> Christian could try whether changing the value of register
> 0x7b (I think you got the offset of the first one wrong) to
> 4 via `pciconf -wb isab0 at pci0:0:7:0 0x7b 4` before playing
> audio makes any difference, but given that with the latest
> firmware your machines also use 2 without problems I doubt
> that will make a difference.

Maybe I've got the offset wrong. I counted the bytes by lines 16 bytes 
each.

> Unfortunately, I'm currently out of ideas what could be
> the reason for the problem Christian is seeing. Given that
> what I have works fine on 2 of 3 Blade 100 and my Blade
> 1500, I'll commit it once I had a chance to verify it
> doesn't break i386 though. It would be great however if
> you could try a slightly updated version of the patch at
> http://people.freebsd.org/~marius/t4dwave_M5451_32-bit.diff
> (MD5 hash: 7aaee2bfeab57c21ab23c98cf1c67f23) with one
> of your Blade 100.

I am currently on holidays and I can not test it but afer 14th of 
September I'll do it. I think I have also an amd64 system with an Asrock 
939Dual Sata2 on it and it has the same sound chip such as I can test the 
patch on i386/amd64 also but maybe I am wrong here.

Regards,

Gheorghe