LNL HDA alsabat capture failed, "Peak freq too low"

[marc-hb]

Originally posted by @marc-hb in #9123 (comment)

https://sof-ci.01.org/sofpr/PR9151/build4789/devicetest/index.html?model=LNLM_RVP_HDA&testcase=check-alsabat-headset-capture-997 ( ba-lnlm-rvp-hda-02)

2024-05-22 10:38:13 UTC [REMOTE_COMMAND] alsabat -Phw:CODEC,0 --standalone -n 240000 -r 48000 -c 2 -f S16_LE -F 997 -k 2.1
2024-05-22 10:38:14 UTC [REMOTE_COMMAND] alsabat -Chw:sofhdadsp,0 -c 2 -r 48000 -f S16_LE -F 997 -k 2.1
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 973.39 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 974.85 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 977.05 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 978.52 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 979.98 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 982.18 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 983.64 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 987.30 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 988.77 Hz
alsa-utils version 1.2.6

Entering capture thread (ALSA).
Get period size: 3000  buffer size: 24000
Recording ...
Capture completed.

BAT analysis: signal has 65536 frames at 48000 Hz, 2 channels, 2 bytes per sample.

Channel 1 - Checking for target frequency 997.00 Hz
Amplitude: 9878.5; Percentage: [30]
Detected peak at 973.39 Hz of 17.57 dB
 Total 17.6 dB from 973.39 to 973.39 Hz
Detected peak at 974.85 Hz of 17.64 dB
 Total 20.6 dB from 974.85 to 974.85 Hz
Detected peak at 977.05 Hz of 17.74 dB
 Total 22.4 dB from 977.05 to 977.05 Hz
Detected peak at 978.52 Hz of 18.62 dB
 Total 23.9 dB from 978.52 to 978.52 Hz
Detected peak at 979.98 Hz of 18.92 dB
 Total 25.1 dB from 979.98 to 979.98 Hz
Detected peak at 982.18 Hz of 18.84 dB
 Total 26.7 dB from 981.45 to 982.18 Hz
Detected peak at 983.64 Hz of 19.88 dB
 Total 27.5 dB from 983.64 to 983.64 Hz
Detected peak at 987.30 Hz of 20.82 dB
 Total 29.8 dB from 985.11 to 987.30 Hz
Detected peak at 988.77 Hz of 22.17 dB
 Total 30.5 dB from 988.77 to 988.77 Hz
Detected peak at 996.83 Hz of 34.94 dB
 Total 41.0 dB from 990.23 to 1004.15 Hz
 PASS: Peak detected at target frequency
Detected at least 10 signal(s) in total

Return value is -1003

[marc-hb]

Again https://sof-ci.01.org/softestpr/PR1200/build467/devicetest/index.html?model=LNLM_RVP_HDA&testcase=check-alsabat-headset-capture-821

[plbossart]

@fredoh9 how many jack connectors do we have on the RVP? is the same 3.5mm jack connector for HDaudio and SoundWire reworks?

[marc-hb]

@fredoh9 how many jack connectors do we have on the RVP?

Only one jack. I don't remember any RVP with more than one jack.

is the same 3.5mm jack connector for HDaudio and SoundWire reworks?

I don't know. I looked at jf-lnlm-rvp-hda-1 and the USB loopback goes through the AIOC board, the RVP jack is not connected. On the other hand, this device is not enabled in CI right now :-( afraid we have to wait for @fredoh9 for this one.

[marc-hb]

I just noticed someone disabled ba-lnlm-rvp-hda-02, on which the two failures were found...

[fredoh9]

@plbossart We have only one jack in the RVP, i don't remember any RVP with multiple JACK.

@marc-hb For LNLM_RVP_HDA, the RVP doesn't have HDA codec, so we attached external AIOC. Hence the jack for the HDA codec is in external AIOC is being used.

[marc-hb]

I just noticed someone disabled ba-lnlm-rvp-hda-02

From @ssavati : silicon being upgraded.

[ssavati]

@marc-hb now ba-lnlm-rvp-hda-02 board is up with silicon upgrade. Its uses community firmware

[marc-hb]

Very recent one today:
https://sof-ci.01.org/softestpr/PR1180/build512/devicetest/index.html?model=LNLM_RVP_HDA&testcase=check-alsabat-headset-playback-821

Underrun: Broken pipe(-32)
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 799.07 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 802.73 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 806.40 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too low 807.86 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too high 834.96 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too high 838.62 Hz
 FAIL: Peak freq too high 842.29 Hz

[kv2019i]

Got one reproduction of this, had to run test 200+ times to hit the problem, so occurence rate would seem to be below 1%. In the one failing case, captured bat.wav looks good but analysis fails, so not clear yet what is happening, but the error looks similar as in original report. If you can hit @jsarha please add data. @marc-hb is this roughly in line with occurence rate you've seen?