Hi Yegor,
On 04.03.2013 10:38, yegorslists@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Yegor Yefremov yegorslists@googlemail.com
Channel size settings will be made at the end of davinci_mcasp_hw_params() routine and thus overwrite frame format settings made for DIT mode. This patch fixes this issue by taking op_mode into account. Tested with official PSP 3.2 kernel and sii9022a HDMI transmitter.
Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov yegorslists@googlemail.com
sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c b/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c index 90a9b99..de59075 100644 --- a/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c +++ b/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c @@ -643,16 +643,23 @@ static int davinci_config_channel_size(struct davinci_audio_dev *dev, /* mapping of the XSSZ bit-field as described in the datasheet */ fmt = (word_length >> 1) - 1;
- mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_RXFMT_REG,
RXSSZ(fmt), RXSSZ(0x0F));- mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_TXFMT_REG,
TXSSZ(fmt), TXSSZ(0x0F));- mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_TXFMT_REG, TXROT(rotate),
TXROT(7));- mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_RXFMT_REG, RXROT(rotate),
RXROT(7));- mcasp_set_reg(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_TXMASK_REG, mask);
- mcasp_set_reg(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_RXMASK_REG, mask);
- if (dev->op_mode == DAVINCI_MCASP_DIT_MODE)
- {
mcasp_set_reg(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_TXMASK_REG, mask);- }
- else
The indentation is wrong here. Please see Documentation/CodingStyle, or let scripts/checkpatch.pl have a look :)
- {
mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_RXFMT_REG,RXSSZ(fmt), RXSSZ(0x0F));mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_TXFMT_REG,TXSSZ(fmt), TXSSZ(0x0F));mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_TXFMT_REG, TXROT(rotate),TXROT(7));mcasp_mod_bits(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_RXFMT_REG, RXROT(rotate),RXROT(7));mcasp_set_reg(dev->base + DAVINCI_MCASP_TXMASK_REG, mask);
As you do the same thing with the DAVINCI_MCASP_TXMASK_REG here as in the branch above, you can as well pull it out of the if-block and invert the condition, right?
Thanks, Daniel