10 Feb
2020
10 Feb
'20
2:31 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 10:47:42AM -0500, Adam Serbinski wrote:
+#define AFE_API_VERSION_PCM_CONFIG 0x1 +/* Enumeration for the auxiliary PCM synchronization signal
- provided by an external source.
- */
+#define AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_EXTERNAL 0x0 +/* Enumeration for the auxiliary PCM synchronization signal
- provided by an internal source.
- */
This is a *weird* commenting style for these #defines and it's not consistent within the block, I'm seeing at least 3 different styles.
+/* Payload of the #AFE_PARAM_ID_PCM_CONFIG command's
- (PCM configuration parameter).
- */
+struct afe_param_id_pcm_cfg {
Similar weird commenting here, please follow coding-style.rst.
- switch (cfg->fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
- case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS:
pcfg->pcm_cfg.sync_src = AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_INTERNAL;break;- case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
/* CPU is slave */pcfg->pcm_cfg.sync_src = AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_EXTERNAL;break;- default:
break;- }
Why is this not returning an error on unsupported values?
- switch (cfg->sample_rate) {
- case 8000:
pcfg->pcm_cfg.frame_setting = AFE_PORT_PCM_BITS_PER_FRAME_128;break;- case 16000:
pcfg->pcm_cfg.frame_setting = AFE_PORT_PCM_BITS_PER_FRAME_64;break;- }
Same here.