[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMo8Bf+NT6HrtXzgx=9TBJwLYFJK1VE-fuBBuoUmmzchhOON2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:19:05 +0300
From: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org" <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: add xtensa xtfpga I2S interface and platform
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:11:34PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> > You *really* need to explain how it's supposed to work - right now it's
>> > not at all obvious, like I say the fact that this is a rarely used idiom
>> > is not helping. For example when we tear down the stream we just assign
>> > the pointer in _stop() but don't bother with a sync until the stream is
>> > closed - why?
>
>> Because we can't wait in stop and syncing is not time critical, we can
>> do it any time before the stream becomes invalid.
>
> To be clear: the important part is that someone reading the code can
> understand what's going on.
Ok, I'll change it.
>> >> hw_params callback can change MCLK rate, so it has to disable and
>> >> enable the clock anyway, and since enable can fail it does not guarantee
>> >> that the clock will be left in the same state. Or should I adjust MCLK rate
>> >> w/o disabling the clock?
>
>> > So yet again: why not just enable the clock only when the device is in
>> > use? If it's being configured it stands to reason that the device isn't
>> > actively in use...
>
>> Mark, I don't get it, sorry ): My clock synthesizer is I2C controlled, so
>> I can't prepare/unprepare it in the trigger callback. When should I do it?
>
> Runtime PM is the normal way of doing it.
Ok, thanks.
>> >> The level field in the control register is 4 bit wide, so the allowed range of
>> >> level is 0..15. FIFO size is 8192 entries, level = 1 corresponds to
>> >> FIFO size / 2, level = 14 -- to FIFO size of 0. I guess this function
>> >> won't get period_size of 0?
>
>> > So if the IP gets changed and the code gets blown up this could well
>> > explode then... which doesn't seem entirely unlikely considering this
>> > is a FPGA platform so presumably this is easy to update. To repeat this
>> > is about clarity and the code looking like it's probably hiding bugs as
>> > much as if the code actually works if you really sit down and study it.
>
>> The calculation does not depend on the actual hardware, but on the
>> constant definitions in the same file. They need to be updated if the
>> hardware changes. I'll try to rewrite it in a cleaner way.
>
> Right, my point is that if someone changes the hardware they'll just
> update the constants and then things will break.
Ok, I've rewritten it in a safer manner.
--
Thanks.
-- Max
--
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