Re: [FFADO-user] [I'm a user and need support] QuataFire 610

[Jonathan W. <jw...@ju...>]

Hi!

On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 07:53:08AM -0500, Shalok Shalom wrote:
> https://gist.github.com/ShalokShalom/909e4fb2f2f7dcb805546d35ebf85944
> https://gist.github.com/ShalokShalom/ad23d4712478a7aa204cdb75f6b551df
> 
> Thanks a lot

Thank you for running these tests.  As I suspected, both failed during
device detection.  The segfault is definitely a bug we need to look into. 
However, the cause of the segfault is that FFADO apparently doesn't know
about your device.  From the ffado-test log:

  152709577163: Debug (devicemanager.cpp)[1110] getDriverForDevice:  no
    supported device found, trying generic support...
  152709577176: Debug (devicemanager.cpp)[1032] getDriverForDeviceDo: Trying
    BeBoB...
  152709586034: Debug (devicemanager.cpp)[1117] getDriverForDevice: device not
    supported...

The reason for the first message is that the vendor/model ID returned by
your interface did not match any which FFADO currently knows about. 
According to the ffado-test output, your interface returned the following
information:

  Node Vendor ID: 0x000f1b
  Model Id: 0x00000210

Looking in the FFADO configuration file, the Quatafire 610 has the following
entry:

{
    vendorid    = 0x000f1b;
    modelid     = 0x00010064;
    vendorname  = "ESI";
    modelname   = "Quatafire 610";
    driver      = "BEBOB";
    mixer       = "QuataFire";
    xmit_max_cycles_early_transmit = 4;
},

The vendor ID matchs what your interface reported but the model ID is quite
different to that which we have seen in the past.  This means that one of
the following has happened:

1. Your unit is faulty and returns an incorrect model ID.

2. Your interface is not a "Quatafire 610" but is instead a later model
   released by ESI.

3. ESI have produced a new "Quatafire 610" which has kept the same name
   but is internally quite different.

Option 1 is extremely unlikely given that everything else seems to be
working, and option 2 doesn't make sense because you'd know if it wasn't a
"Quatafire 610" because something else would be written on the interface. 
That leaves option 3 or something else I haven't through of yet.

You'll notice that FFADO retries the BeBoB driver in generic mode after an
initial scan of its known device list fails.  The fact that it failed to
pick up the device indicates that your device is not based on BeBoB, lending
further weight to option 3.  However, it would be strange if ESI did
something like this.

A quick web search has failed to find any obvious evidence that the 610 has
undergone an internal refresh at any stage.  There was a Quantafire XL which
came after the 610, but that is clearly marked as such.  According to the
esi-audio.com website, these were the only two devices to carry the
"Quantafire" name.

All this comes back to the fact that your Quantafire 610 is returning a
model ID which differs from what we have previously associated with this
device.

Could you confirm the full model name of your ESI audio interface?

Regards
  jonathan