linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54D86911.2040302@atmel.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:00:17 +0800
From:	Bo Shen <voice.shen@...el.com>
To:	Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"Peter Rosin" <peda@...ator.liu.se>
CC:	"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates

Hi Peter,

On 02/09/2015 03:35 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Bo Shen wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>
> Hi!
>
>> On 02/07/2015 06:51 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction.
>>>>> Is that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
>>>>
>>>> I don't really get what this is supposed to be protecting against.
>>>>
>>>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
>>>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
>>>>> +		t.min = 8000;
>>>>> +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
>>>>> +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
>>>>> +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
>>>>> +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
>>>>> +		t.integer = 0;
>>>>> +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it this is a straight divider rather than something
>>>> that's doing dithering or anything else more fancy.  Given that it
>>>> seems as well just to trust the clock rate we've got - we don't do
>>>> any error tracking with the clock API (perhaps we should) and for
>>>> many applications some degree of divergence from the nominal rate is
>>>> not
>>>> *too* bad for audio systems (for application specific values of "some"
>>>> and "too" of course).  If it is just dividers I'm not sure the
>>>> situation is really improved materially by knocking off the top frequency.
>>>>
>>>> If we are doing something more fancy than divididing my analysis is
>>>> off base of course.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that the SSC samples the selected BCK pin using the
>>> (possibly
>>> divided) peripheral clock. Getting too near the theoretical rate limit
>>> would be bad, if these two independent clocks drift the wrong way. At
>>> least that is my take on it, but I don't know the internal workings of the SSC, so...
>>>
>>> I was hoping that someone from Atmel could chime in? Maybe I'm totally
>>
>> Sorry for late response.
>
> No problem!
>
>>> off base, and the SSC is doing this completely differently?
>>
>> What you mean here? I am not sure I fully understand.
>
> The SSC spec list a maximum rate (which varies with the direction
> of various signals, ignoring that for the sake of this explanation). Lets
> assume that this maximum rate is 11MHz, derived from the peripheral
> clock which might be 66MHz. If you then try to input an 11MHz signal
> derived from some unrelated xtal you might think it should work. My
> theory was that the rate limit would be broken if the peripheral clock
> wasn't really 66MHz, but instead a few ppm lower than nominal, and
> the unrelated xtal was a few ppm higher than nominal.
>
> If this matters or not depends on how the SSC is implemented.

This is to let the user to know the clock limitation, am I right?

And at the same time deal with the un-precise clock which come to SSC? 
If this case, I think we should trust the clock come to SSC.

> There might be other reasons for not caring all that much about
> this fringe case, and just trust the nominal rates and limits.
>
>>> In our application, we're not near the limit. Therefore, it really
>>> doesn't matter much to us.
>>>
>>> Should I resend w/o the 500ppm deduction?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Bo Shen

Best Regards,
Bo Shen
--
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/