[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANKRQniUnEPawXZHcPH9kG0hDiaZ-eJ_vOQrCefB0ntCu98D6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 19:49:16 +0900
From: Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qi.wang@...el.com,
yong.y.wang@...el.com, joel.clark@...el.com, kok.howg.ewe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sound/soc/codecs: add LAPIS Semiconductor ML26124
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 19:00 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>:
> This is not the case. As I have *REPEATEDLY* told you you should be
> sumbitting code against current development versions of the subsystem.
You are right. v3.3-rc6 uses it. sorry for inconvenience.
>> >> +static int ml26124_update_bits(struct snd_soc_codec *codec, unsigned short reg,
>> >> + unsigned int mask, unsigned int value)
>> > Why are you open coding this in your driver? There is no point in
>> > replicating subsystem functionality.
>>
>> For ML26124 spec, it's necessary.
>> Because the codec's register read-address and write-address is not the same.
>> E.G.
>> Sampling Rate Register
>> R: offset=0
>> W: offset=1
>
> This is not what the above prototype says, the above prototype has only
> one register in it. You need to make this *much* clearer for the
> registers it's affecting.
Sorry, I couldn't understand your saying / concern.
Do you mean I shouldn't use ml26124_update_bits() but snd_soc_update_bits() ?
thanks,
--
ROHM Co., Ltd.
tomoya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists