On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:03:33PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 3/15/18 10:40 PM, Guneshwor Singh wrote:
Hi Pierre,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 07:23:05AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
+static int cnl_rt274_clock_control(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *w,
struct snd_kcontrol *k, int event)+{
- struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm = w->dapm;
- struct snd_soc_card *card = dapm->card;
- struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai =
snd_soc_card_get_codec_dai(card, RT274_CODEC_DAI);- int ret, ratio = 100;
- if (!codec_dai)
return -EINVAL;- /* Codec needs clock for Jack detection and button press */
- ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(codec_dai, RT274_SCLK_S_PLL2,
CNL_FREQ_OUT, SND_SOC_CLOCK_IN);- if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(codec_dai->dev, "set codec sysclk failed: %d\n", ret);return ret;- }
- if (SND_SOC_DAPM_EVENT_ON(event)) {
ret = snd_soc_dai_set_bclk_ratio(codec_dai, ratio);if (ret) {dev_err(codec_dai->dev,"set bclk ratio failed: %d\n", ret);return ret;}ret = snd_soc_dai_set_pll(codec_dai, 0, RT274_PLL2_S_BCLK,CNL_BE_FIXUP_RATE * ratio,CNL_FREQ_OUT);if (ret) {dev_err(codec_dai->dev,"enable PLL2 failed: %d\n", ret);return ret;}- }
- return 0;
+}
it's not clear to me why you need a clock control? You are not changing anything that really depends on DAPM events, to e.g. take the MCLK down and use a local clock, so could this be moved to hw_params?
Yes, we can do in hw_params too. When we implemented it we thought during simultaneous playback and capture, hw_params will be called twice but clock clock event will be called just once.
Yes, I remember this discussion but what's missing here is that PLL is always set to the max value, in most cases we fall back to a local clock to save power a bit. And it's probably wrong to leave a PLL on if the clock reference is turned off on the SOC side.
Ok, got you. I should do stop in else part of it something like
else snd_soc_dai_set_pll(codec_dai, 0, RT274_PLL2_S_BCLK, 0, 0);
It does not harm to call twice as done in other machine drivers. Do you suggest to move it to hw_params?
+static const struct snd_soc_dapm_route cnl_map[] = {
- {"Headphone Jack", NULL, "HPO Pin"},
- {"MIC", NULL, "Mic Jack"},
- {"DMic", NULL, "SoC DMIC"},
- {"DMIC01 Rx", NULL, "Capture"},
- {"dmic01_hifi", NULL, "DMIC01 Rx"},
- {"AIF1 Playback", NULL, "ssp0 Tx"},
- {"ssp0 Tx", NULL, "codec1_out"},
- {"ssp0 Tx", NULL, "codec0_out"},
I get the routes to connect firmware widgets to codec ones, but why do we need SSP0 TX-> codec1_out? shouldn't this be part of the topology?
We still have routes for BEs defined here. Only FE ones come from topology.
The comment was about the codec1_out->SSP0 TX. Why is this hard-coded? You would only need SSP0 TX->AIF1 playback
Yes, to maintain similarity with other Intel machine drivers this was done. All routes of BE widgets are hard-coded. The same can be done from topology too. Let me remove these including codec0_in from here in v3.
- {"ssp0 Rx", NULL, "AIF1 Capture"},
- {"codec0_in", NULL, "ssp0 Rx"},
- {"Headphone Jack", NULL, "Platform Clock"},
- {"Mic Jack", NULL, "Platform Clock"},
+};
+static struct snd_soc_jack_pin cnl_headset_pins[] = {
- {
.pin = "Mic Jack",.mask = SND_JACK_MICROPHONE,- },
- {
.pin = "Headphone Jack",.mask = SND_JACK_HEADPHONE,- },
+};
+static struct snd_soc_jack cnl_headset;
+static int cnl_rt274_init(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *runtime) +{
- struct snd_soc_card *card = runtime->card;
- struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = runtime->codec_dai;
- struct snd_soc_component *component = codec_dai->component;
- int ret;
- ret = snd_soc_card_jack_new(runtime->card, "Headset",
SND_JACK_HEADSET, &cnl_headset,cnl_headset_pins, ARRAY_SIZE(cnl_headset_pins));- if (ret)
return ret;- ret = snd_soc_component_set_jack(component, &cnl_headset, NULL);
- if (ret)
return ret;- /* TDM 4 slots 24 bit, set Rx & Tx bitmask to 4 active slots */
- ret = snd_soc_dai_set_tdm_slot(codec_dai, 0xf, 0xf, 4, 24);
what are the 4 slots used for?
Ah, this is a mistake. Thanks for pointing out. It should be snd_soc_dai_set_tdm_slot(codec_dai, 0x3, 0x3, 2, 24) as we do not have speakers on rt274. Will correct in v3.
then it also begs the question why you needed to have both codec0_out and codec1_out mentioned above - same issue really about hard-coding things that should be topology defined.
It should by only codec0_out (codec1_out shouldn't be there at all).
Thanks for the review!
Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel