You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Re-introducing state change in dai_comp_trigger_internal() breaks some tests from Intel CI #8920
Attempting to bring back the state transition logic in dai-zephyr's dai_comp_trigger_internal() that was initially removed by 6ffb052 seems to break some tests from the Intel CI. The logic is needed for NXP platforms and is re-introduced by #8859 via 59d05a3.
As a workaround, the state transition logic has been made IPC3-specific but it might be worth looking into this and trying to make the code IPC version-agnostic if possible.
@LaurentiuM1234 probably the best thing todo is to break down the changes into small bi-sectable patches and upstream them incrementally. This would allow more specific targeting when the issue is introduced.
@LaurentiuM1234 are we good to close now that #8859 is merged or more still todo ?
This issue was actually created by the introduction of #8859 (1bf6b8c). I think the question still stands: why does that code bit break Intel test(s) if made IPC version-agnostic?
This issue has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this issue will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed issue at any time.
Activity
lgirdwood commentedon Mar 8, 2024
@LaurentiuM1234 probably the best thing todo is to break down the changes into small bi-sectable patches and upstream them incrementally. This would allow more specific targeting when the issue is introduced.
lgirdwood commentedon May 28, 2024
@LaurentiuM1234 are we good to close now that #8859 is merged or more still todo ?
LaurentiuM1234 commentedon May 28, 2024
This issue was actually created by the introduction of #8859 (1bf6b8c). I think the question still stands: why does that code bit break Intel test(s) if made IPC version-agnostic?
kv2019i commentedon Jun 5, 2024
Stable branched for 2.10, nobody assigned to work on this, so moving this to 2.11.
kv2019i commentedon Sep 5, 2024
No owner -> v2.12
kv2019i commentedon Jan 3, 2025
No owner still -> v2.13
kv2019i commentedon Apr 23, 2025
No owner for two releases, moving to TBD milestone for now.
github-actions commentedon Jul 24, 2025
This issue has been marked as stale because it has been open (more than) 60 days with no activity. Remove the stale label or add a comment saying that you would like to have the label removed otherwise this issue will automatically be closed in 14 days. Note, that you can always re-open a closed issue at any time.