On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:06:12PM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote:
On 12.05.2016 14:15, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 08:48:54AM +0200, Petr Kulhavy wrote: @@ -693,15 +682,18 @@ static int wm8985_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, struct snd_soc_codec *codec; struct wm8985_priv *wm8985; u16 blen, srate_idx;
- unsigned int tmp; int srate_best;
- unsigned int bclk; /* bit clock matching the current params */
- unsigned int sysclk; /* the actual sysclk after post division */ codec = dai->codec; wm8985 = snd_soc_codec_get_drvdata(codec);
- wm8985->bclk = snd_soc_params_to_bclk(params);
- if ((int)wm8985->bclk < 0)
return wm8985->bclk;
- /* always use 256 * fs in order to get best filter quality */
- sysclk = 256 * params_rate(params);
Seems quite bold to assume we always want to use 256*fs, I am not super familiar with the part itself but are there good reasons to do that? What if someone wanted to use say a direct MCLK and a lower multiple?
The intent presumably here is that set_sysclk is where we set the target SYSCLK and set_pll should set the PLL output then here we probably should work out the correct MCLKDIV to get those.
As I understand the datasheet the codec is basically designed for 256*fs clock: DAC and ADC expect it, so do the cutoffs for the digital filters, ALC attack and delay times. Also all the timing diagrams are specified at 256fs clock.
Ok that seems pretty conclusive that we should always have this at 256fs.
static int pll_factors(struct pll_div *pll_div, unsigned int target, unsigned int source) { @@ -872,17 +867,23 @@ static int wm8985_set_sysclk(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, WM8985_CLKSEL_MASK, 0); snd_soc_update_bits(codec, WM8985_POWER_MANAGEMENT_1, WM8985_PLLEN_MASK, 0);
wm8985->pllout = freq;/** in order to run the PLL within the recommended 90MHz* operating range the wm8985_set_pll() configures the PLL* to output double the required frequency*/wm8985->pllout = 2 * freq;Were does this *2 come from? Is this the PLLPRESCALE?
It comes from the following line in wm8985_set_pll() : ret = pll_factors(&pll_div, freq_out * 4 * 2, freq_in);
This formula is taken over from the datasheet (the section Master Clock and PLL, calculation of the f2) and is correct. It attempts to get the PLL to run at approx. 90MHz where it performs the best. But since there is only f/4 fixed post-divider after the PLL (see the Figure 40 in the wm8758 or Figure 38 in the wm8985 datasheet) the F_pllout is effectively freq*2.
Ok that also makes sense.
I will have another quick look over the patch.
Thanks, Charles