On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Mark Brownbroonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:35:08AM +0900, jassi brar wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Mark Brownbroonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
Codec recommends - BCLK={32, 48} RFS={384}
I'm not sure where these CODEC recommendations come from?
Well, my example was inspired from one recommendation/constraint i found at Page-23, of WM8580A manual Rev-4.7 March-2009. It indicates that we can't have BCLK as 16fs if RFS(MCLK/LRCLK) is either 128fs or 192fs.
That's not a recommendation, that's a hardware limit.
Another way of putting it. When we can't do somthing, it is recommended otherwise :)
Though I still don't see how we get to a 48fs BCLK (which could only be generated with a 48fs system clock) or a recommendation for a 384fs MCLK in particular. This is all a bit of a sidetrack anyway.
Yes, a badly put example.
Just as WM8580 has a constraint on BCLK(128fs) at MCLK=128,192fs, some SoC may have a constraint of using BCLK=48fs for MCLK=384fs @16-bits/sample.
Like I say, I'd be very surprised to see any such constraint
This was just an example. I once had to set non-obvious values of BCLK+MCLK on the codec due to the clock I had that ran the SoC in Master mode. Will let you know the real life example if i cud dig that up again.
I think i have made whatever points i had. Am at peace now :) Do as u wish appropriate with the patch.
Regards.