Il 28/07/23 11:08, Maso Huang ha scritto:
Add support for mt7986 board with wm8960.
Signed-off-by: Maso Huang maso.huang@mediatek.com
sound/soc/mediatek/Kconfig | 10 ++ sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/Makefile | 1 + sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/mt7986-wm8960.c | 184 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 195 insertions(+) create mode 100644 sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/mt7986-wm8960.c
diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/Kconfig b/sound/soc/mediatek/Kconfig index 558827755a8d..8d1bc8814486 100644 --- a/sound/soc/mediatek/Kconfig +++ b/sound/soc/mediatek/Kconfig @@ -64,6 +64,16 @@ config SND_SOC_MT7986 Select Y if you have such device. If unsure select "N".
+config SND_SOC_MT7986_WM8960
- tristate "ASoc Audio driver for MT7986 with WM8960 codec"
- depends on SND_SOC_MT7986 && I2C
- select SND_SOC_WM8960
- help
This adds support for ASoC machine driver for MediaTek MT7986boards with the WM8960 codecs.Select Y if you have such device.If unsure select "N".- config SND_SOC_MT8173 tristate "ASoC support for Mediatek MT8173 chip" depends on ARCH_MEDIATEK
diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/Makefile b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/Makefile index de0742a67cae..fc4c82559b29 100644 --- a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/Makefile +++ b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/Makefile @@ -6,3 +6,4 @@ snd-soc-mt7986-afe-objs := \ mt7986-dai-etdm.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_MT7986) += snd-soc-mt7986-afe.o +obj-$(CONFIG_SND_SOC_MT7986_WM8960) += mt7986-wm8960.o diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/mt7986-wm8960.c b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/mt7986-wm8960.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..a880fcb8662e --- /dev/null +++ b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt7986/mt7986-wm8960.c
..snip..
+static int mt7986_wm8960_machine_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{
- struct snd_soc_card *card = &mt7986_wm8960_card;
- struct snd_soc_dai_link *dai_link;
- struct mt7986_wm8960_priv *priv;
- int ret, i;
- priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!priv)
return -ENOMEM;- priv->platform_node = of_parse_phandle(pdev->dev.of_node,
"mediatek,platform", 0);- if (!priv->platform_node) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Property 'platform' missing or invalid\n");return -EINVAL;- }
- for_each_card_prelinks(card, i, dai_link) {
if (dai_link->platforms->name)continue;dai_link->platforms->of_node = priv->platform_node;- }
- card->dev = &pdev->dev;
- priv->codec_node = of_parse_phandle(pdev->dev.of_node,
"mediatek,audio-codec", 0);- if (!priv->codec_node) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev,"Property 'audio-codec' missing or invalid\n");of_node_put(priv->platform_node);return -EINVAL;- }
- for_each_card_prelinks(card, i, dai_link) {
if (dai_link->codecs->name)continue;dai_link->codecs->of_node = priv->codec_node;- }
- ret = snd_soc_of_parse_audio_routing(card, "audio-routing");
- if (ret) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to parse audio-routing: %d\n", ret);goto err_of_node_put;- }
- ret = devm_snd_soc_register_card(&pdev->dev, card);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s snd_soc_register_card fail %d\n",__func__, ret);goto err_of_node_put;- }
+err_of_node_put:
- of_node_put(priv->codec_node);
- of_node_put(priv->platform_node);
- return ret;
+}
+static void mt7986_wm8960_machine_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) +{
- struct snd_soc_card *card = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
- struct mt7986_wm8960_priv *priv = snd_soc_card_get_drvdata(card);
- of_node_put(priv->codec_node);
- of_node_put(priv->platform_node);
+}
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
Your probe function *relies on* devicetree, and you're adding an ifdef for CONFIG_OF? That wouldn't make sense, would it? ;-)
+static const struct of_device_id mt7986_wm8960_machine_dt_match[] = {
- {.compatible = "mediatek,mt7986-wm8960-machine",},
please...
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt7986-wm8960-machine" },
- { /* sentinel */ }
+}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mt7986_wm8960_machine_dt_match); +#endif
+static struct platform_driver mt7986_wm8960_machine = {
- .driver = {
.name = "mt7986-wm8960",+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
Check `struct device_driver`: const struct of_device_id *of_match_table is always present, there's no ifdef.... and that's done in order to avoid seeing a bunch of ifdefs in drivers...
...so, why is this callback enclosed in an ifdef?
Please drop all those ifdefs.
After addressing those last comments, you can get my
Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com
Regards, Angelo