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: <54D8243C.6090902@atmel.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:06:36 +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 02/07/2015 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.

> off base, and the SSC is doing this completely differently?

What you mean here? I am not sure I fully understand.

> 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
--
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/