linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH] ASoC: wm8960: Use physical width for bclk

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEnQRZDkn=AUZo2LwqarQmYMh4SQcxksZZdxJFA618k9yKtQtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:11:32 +0200
From:   Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, shengjiu.wang@...escale.com,
        patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lgirdwood@...il.com, viorel.suman@....com, mihai.serban@....com,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH] ASoC: wm8960: Use physical width for bclk

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:19:01AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:57:02PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote:
>
>> > -   wm8960->bclk = snd_soc_params_to_bclk(params);
>> > +   wm8960->bclk = params_physical_width(params) *
>> > +           params_channels(params) * params_rate(params);
>> >     if (params_channels(params) == 1)
>> >             wm8960->bclk *= 2;
>
>> Would quite like to see Mark's thoughts on this. Feels a bit to
>> me (although I am not certain) like we are solving the problem in
>> the wrong place, isn't this really setting the desired BCLK and
>> then in wm8960_configure_clocking we should set the lowest BCLK
>> we can that is greater than or equal to the desired.
>
> Exactly, this is the wrong fix in the wrong place - if this is something
> we want to do we should be doing it in the shared functions so all
> CODECs get the same behaviour but really I think Charles' suggestion
> makes more sense.

I see your point. Thanks a lot for feedback.

I already have an implementation for Charles' suggestion.
 Will send the patches asap.

thanks,
Daniel.