[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190502013022.GN14916@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 10:30:22 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@...semi.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Akshu Agrawal <Akshu.Agrawal@....com>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: da7219: Use clk_round_rate to handle enabled
bclk/wclk case
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:16:08AM +0000, Adam Thomson wrote:
> On 27 April 2019 18:20, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Don't we need to validate that the rounded rate is actually viable for
> > the parameters we're trying to set here? If there's missing constraints
> > causing something to try to do something unsupportable then we should
> > return an error rather than silently accept.
> Thanks for directing my gaze to this again. Actually I don't think the SR should
> be rounded at all. If it doesn't match exactly it should fail so I'll remove the
> rounding here. Not sure what my brain was doing there.
Yeah, rounding is dubious with sample rate. Many applications will be
able to tolerate *some* variation as there's tolerances in the crystals
if nothing else but intentionally allowing it is a bit different.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists