[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62630844c7434df6937ca25d3f47b656@BY2PR03MB505.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 04:06:53 +0000
From: "Li.Xiubo@...escale.com" <Li.Xiubo@...escale.com>
To: "guangyu.chen@...escale.com" <guangyu.chen@...escale.com>
CC: "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_sai: Add isr to deal with error flag
> > > > > > > + if (xcsr & FSL_SAI_CSR_FWF)
> > > > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "isr: Enabled transmit FIFO is empty\n");
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (xcsr & FSL_SAI_CSR_FRF)
> > > > > > > + dev_dbg(dev, "isr: Transmit FIFO watermark has been
> > > reached\n");
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While are these ones really needed to clear manually ?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reference manual doesn't mention about the requirement. So SAI
> should
> > > do
> > > > > the self-clearance.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I do think we should let it do the self-clearance, and shouldn't
> > > interfere
> > > > of them...
> > >
> > > SAI is supposed to ignore the interference, isn't it?
> > >
> >
> > Maybe, but I'm not very sure.
> > And these bits are all writable and readable.
>
> Double-confirmed? Because FWF and FRF should be read-only bits.
>
So let's just ignore the clearance of these bits in isr().
+++++
SAI Transmit Control Register (I2S1_TCSR) : 32 : R/W : 0000_0000h
-----
I have checked in the Vybrid and LS1 SoC datasheets, and they are all the
Same as above, and nothing else.
Have I missed ?
--
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