On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:09:43PM -0400, jonsmirl@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:
No, the machine driver runs first so it can do any coordination needed between the other devices. Attempting to fiddle about with the ordering is never going to be robust, someone else will always want a different ordering at some point.
I don't see how to fix this without making a machine driver that simply tells the cpu-dai to change the MCLK output from 22.5Mhz to 24.5Mhz earlier in the hw_params chain. But that's putting a generic piece of code into the machine driver.
That's absolutely fine, the clocking arrangements and sequencing requirements for achieving it are in general going to depend on the machine. The machine may have requirements which mean that it doesn't want to use a clock configuration it's physically possible for it to generate, or it may want to do more extensive reparenting depending on use case.
For things like this it is generally good practice for the machine driver to disable all clocks (set their rates to zero) when disabling if it wants to support reconfiguration.
Shouldn't codec always be the last in the chain? What would be a case where you don't want it at the end of the chain?
How are you deciding what the ordering for "the chain" should be in the first place? It seems like you're just assuming that it's what you want to set for your system which in turn appears to be derived from what you're using as clock master, it's very common for the CODEC to be the clock master in a system.
One could equally argue here that the master shouldn't allow itself to have the clock rate reprogrammed when it has something deriving a clock from it (after all if that thing is running it might be disrupted).