[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191220121152.GC4790@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:11:52 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Chang <richtek.jeff.chang@...il.com>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jeff_chang@...htek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Add MediaTek MT6660 Speaker Amp Driver
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:15:34PM +0800, Jeff Chang wrote:
> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/mt6660.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,653 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2019 MediaTek Inc.
> + */
Please make the entire comment a C++ one so things look more
intentional.
> + { MT6660_REG_DEVID, 2},
> + { MT6660_REG_TDM_CFG3, 2},
> + { MT6660_REG_HCLIP_CTRL, 2},
> + { MT6660_REG_DA_GAIN, 2},
Missing space before the } (the same thing happens in some of the
other tables).
> +static int mt6660_component_get_volsw(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)
> +{
> + struct snd_soc_component *component =
> + snd_soc_kcontrol_component(kcontrol);
> + struct mt6660_chip *chip = (struct mt6660_chip *)
> + snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(kcontrol->id.name, "Chip_Rev")) {
Why would this be used on a different control?
> + SOC_SINGLE_EXT("BoostMode", MT6660_REG_BST_CTRL, 0, 3, 0,
> + snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),
Boost Mode. You've also got a lot of these controls that are _EXT but
you then just use standard operations so it's not clear why you're using
_EXT.
> + SOC_SINGLE_EXT("audio input selection", MT6660_REG_DATAO_SEL, 6, 3, 0,
> + snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),
Audio Input Selection, but this looks like it should be a DAPM control
if it's controlling audio routing. A simple numerical setting
definitely doesn't seem like the right thing.
> + SOC_SINGLE_EXT("AUD LOOP BACK Switch", MT6660_REG_PATH_BYPASS, 4, 1, 0,
> + snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),
This sounds like it should be a DAPM thing too.
> +static int mt6660_component_probe(struct snd_soc_component *component)
> +{
> + struct mt6660_chip *chip = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + dev_info(component->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
dev_dbg() at most but probably better to remove this and the other
similar dev_info()s.
> +static inline int _mt6660_chip_id_check(struct mt6660_chip *chip)
> +{
> + u8 id[2] = {0};
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(chip->i2c, MT6660_REG_DEVID, 2, id);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + ret = (id[0] << 8) + id[1];
> + ret &= 0x0ff0;
> + if (ret != 0x00e0 && ret != 0x01e0)
> + return -ENODEV;
It'd be better to print an error message saying we don't recognize the
device to help people doing debugging.
> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "rt,init_setting_num", &val)) {
> + dev_info(dev, "no init setting\n");
> + chip->plat_data.init_setting_num = 0;
You should be adding a DT binding document for any new DT bindings.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists