Il 03/03/22 15:10, Jiaxin Yu ha scritto:
On Fri, 2022-02-18 at 15:54 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 17/02/22 14:41, Jiaxin Yu ha scritto:
This patch adds mt8186 tdm dai driver.
Signed-off-by: Jiaxin Yu jiaxin.yu@mediatek.com
sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c | 713 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 713 insertions(+) create mode 100644 sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c
diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..28dd3661f0e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c @@ -0,0 +1,713 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +// +// MediaTek ALSA SoC Audio DAI TDM Control +// +// Copyright (c) 2022 MediaTek Inc. +// Author: Jiaxin Yu jiaxin.yu@mediatek.com
..snip..
+static int mtk_dai_tdm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params,struct snd_soc_dai *dai)+{
- struct mtk_base_afe *afe = snd_soc_dai_get_drvdata(dai);
- struct mt8186_afe_private *afe_priv = afe->platform_priv;
- int tdm_id = dai->id;
- struct mtk_afe_tdm_priv *tdm_priv = afe_priv->dai_priv[tdm_id];
- unsigned int tdm_mode = tdm_priv->tdm_mode;
- unsigned int data_mode = tdm_priv->data_mode;
- unsigned int rate = params_rate(params);
- unsigned int channels = params_channels(params);
- snd_pcm_format_t format = params_format(params);
- unsigned int bit_width =
snd_pcm_format_physical_width(format);- unsigned int tdm_channels = (data_mode == TDM_DATA_ONE_PIN) ?
get_tdm_ch_per_sdata(tdm_mode, channels) : 2;- unsigned int lrck_width =
get_tdm_lrck_width(format, tdm_mode);- unsigned int tdm_con = 0;
- bool slave_mode = tdm_priv->slave_mode;
- bool lrck_inv = tdm_priv->lck_invert;
- bool bck_inv = tdm_priv->bck_invert;
- unsigned int ctrl_reg;
- unsigned int ctrl_mask;
- unsigned int tran_rate;
- unsigned int tran_relatch_rate;
- if (tdm_priv)
tdm_priv->rate = rate;- else
dev_info(afe->dev, "%s(), tdm_priv == NULL", __func__);- tran_rate = mt8186_rate_transform(afe->dev, rate, dai->id);
- tran_relatch_rate = mt8186_tdm_relatch_rate_transform(afe->dev,
rate);
- /* calculate mclk_rate, if not set explicitly */
- if (!tdm_priv->mclk_rate) {
tdm_priv->mclk_rate = rate * tdm_priv->mclk_multiple;mtk_dai_tdm_cal_mclk(afe,tdm_priv,tdm_priv->mclk_rate);- }
- /* ETDM_IN1_CON0 */
- tdm_con |= slave_mode << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_SLAVE_MODE_SFT;
- tdm_con |= tdm_mode << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_FMT_SFT;
- tdm_con |= (bit_width - 1) << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_BIT_LENGTH_SFT;
- tdm_con |= (bit_width - 1) <<
ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_WORD_LENGTH_SFT;
- tdm_con |= (tdm_channels - 1) << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_CH_NUM_SFT;
- /* default disable sync mode */
- tdm_con |= 0 << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_SYNC_MODE_SFT;
0 << (anything) == 0
(number |= 0) == number
Is this a mistake, or are you really doing nothing here?
No, this is just to emphasize the need to set this bit to 0. It really do nothing here, just link a reminder. Can I keep this sentence?
If, in your judgement, it is very important to have a reminder about that bit having to be unset, then add a comment in the code saying so. Don't simply comment out the statement as it is.
A good way would be something like /* sync mode bit has to be unset because this that reason, otherwise X happens */
- /* relatch fix to h26m */
- tdm_con |= 0 << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_RELATCH_1X_EN_SEL_DOMAIN_SFT;
- ctrl_reg = ETDM_IN1_CON0;
- ctrl_mask = ETDM_IN_CON0_CTRL_MASK;
- regmap_update_bits(afe->regmap, ctrl_reg, ctrl_mask, tdm_con);
- /* ETDM_IN1_CON1 */
- tdm_con = 0;
- tdm_con |= 0 << ETDM_IN1_CON1_REG_LRCK_AUTO_MODE_SFT;
- tdm_con |= 1 << ETDM_IN1_CON1_PINMUX_MCLK_CTRL_OE_SFT;
- tdm_con |= (lrck_width - 1) <<
ETDM_IN1_CON1_REG_LRCK_WIDTH_SFT;
- ctrl_reg = ETDM_IN1_CON1;
- ctrl_mask = ETDM_IN_CON1_CTRL_MASK;
- regmap_update_bits(afe->regmap, ctrl_reg, ctrl_mask, tdm_con);
You don't need the ctrl_reg, nor ctrl_mask variables...
I was trying to avoid a line of more than 80 words, so I shortened the number of words through variables.
Yes, I know, I did understand what you were trying to do... ...but it's fine to go past 80: in this case this would be 88 columns, which is still ok to have!
And note, this is the case with all of similar calls present in this function, that's why I said that you don't need these two variables! :)
Thank you, Angelo