On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
On 04/24/2015 08:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:35:28PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
+const struct snd_pcm_hardware uni_reader_pcm_hw = {
- .info = (SNDRV_PCM_INFO_INTERLEAVED |
SNDRV_PCM_INFO_BLOCK_TRANSFER |SNDRV_PCM_INFO_PAUSE),
The commit message says this is a CPU DAI but a snd_pcm_hardware is a DMA controller.
Do you means that i should just define a structure related to DAI constraints and fill snd_pcm_hardware in sti_platform.c?
I mean that if I'm reviewing a DAI driver I don't expect to see definitions for a DMA controller without warning.
+static inline int get_property_hdl(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
const char *prop, int idx)
This appears to be duplicated from the previous patch, as does a *lot* of the code here. Can we not share more of the code between playback and capture paths?
I spitted reader and player code,because it is 2 different IPs with some specific features and behavior ( clock, master/slave mode, IEC, standby ...). From my point of view is is more clear like this, but It is feasible to merge both code adding conditions on direction in most functions. Please tell me what you prefer. I case of merge i suppose that the best is to not define uniperif_ops struct but externalize functions...
That's reasonable, we just shouldn't be seeing large chunks of obvious code duplication.