[alsa-devel] [PATCH RFC/RFT] ASoC: rt5677: Convert to use rl6231_pll_calc
The implementation of rt5677_pll_calc() has the same logic of rl6231_pll_calc(). The only difference is the lower boundary checking for freq_in.
This patch calls rl6231_pll_calc() instead of open-coded. The k_bp of struct rt5677_pll_code is always false, thus also remove the code to check pll_code.k_bp.
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin axel.lin@ingics.com --- Hi Oder, This patch removes the usage of k_bp from struct rt5677_pll_code because it is always false. I think if k_bp is necessay in the further development, maybe it's better to add it to rl6231_pll_code. How do you think?
Regards, Axel
sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.c | 69 ++++++----------------------------------------- sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.h | 8 ------ 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.c b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.c index 45f99a8..e7c401f 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.c @@ -2988,62 +2988,12 @@ static int rt5677_set_dai_sysclk(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, * Returns 0 for success or negative error code. */ static int rt5677_pll_calc(const unsigned int freq_in, - const unsigned int freq_out, struct rt5677_pll_code *pll_code) + const unsigned int freq_out, struct rl6231_pll_code *pll_code) { - int max_n = RT5677_PLL_N_MAX, max_m = RT5677_PLL_M_MAX; - int k, red, n_t, pll_out, in_t; - int n = 0, m = 0, m_t = 0; - int out_t, red_t = abs(freq_out - freq_in); - bool m_bp = false, k_bp = false; - - if (RT5677_PLL_INP_MAX < freq_in || RT5677_PLL_INP_MIN > freq_in) + if (RT5677_PLL_INP_MIN > freq_in) return -EINVAL;
- k = 100000000 / freq_out - 2; - if (k > RT5677_PLL_K_MAX) - k = RT5677_PLL_K_MAX; - for (n_t = 0; n_t <= max_n; n_t++) { - in_t = freq_in / (k + 2); - pll_out = freq_out / (n_t + 2); - if (in_t < 0) - continue; - if (in_t == pll_out) { - m_bp = true; - n = n_t; - goto code_find; - } - red = abs(in_t - pll_out); - if (red < red_t) { - m_bp = true; - n = n_t; - m = m_t; - if (red == 0) - goto code_find; - red_t = red; - } - for (m_t = 0; m_t <= max_m; m_t++) { - out_t = in_t / (m_t + 2); - red = abs(out_t - pll_out); - if (red < red_t) { - m_bp = false; - n = n_t; - m = m_t; - if (red == 0) - goto code_find; - red_t = red; - } - } - } - pr_debug("Only get approximation about PLL\n"); - -code_find: - - pll_code->m_bp = m_bp; - pll_code->k_bp = k_bp; - pll_code->m_code = m; - pll_code->n_code = n; - pll_code->k_code = k; - return 0; + return rl6231_pll_calc(freq_in, freq_out, pll_code); }
static int rt5677_set_dai_pll(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, int pll_id, int source, @@ -3051,7 +3001,7 @@ static int rt5677_set_dai_pll(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, int pll_id, int source, { struct snd_soc_codec *codec = dai->codec; struct rt5677_priv *rt5677 = snd_soc_codec_get_drvdata(codec); - struct rt5677_pll_code pll_code; + struct rl6231_pll_code pll_code; int ret;
if (source == rt5677->pll_src && freq_in == rt5677->pll_in && @@ -3109,15 +3059,12 @@ static int rt5677_set_dai_pll(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, int pll_id, int source, return ret; }
- dev_dbg(codec->dev, "m_bypass=%d k_bypass=%d m=%d n=%d k=%d\n", - pll_code.m_bp, pll_code.k_bp, - (pll_code.m_bp ? 0 : pll_code.m_code), pll_code.n_code, - (pll_code.k_bp ? 0 : pll_code.k_code)); + dev_dbg(codec->dev, "m_bypass=%d m=%d n=%d k=%d\n", + pll_code.m_bp, (pll_code.m_bp ? 0 : pll_code.m_code), + pll_code.n_code, pll_code.k_code);
regmap_write(rt5677->regmap, RT5677_PLL1_CTRL1, - pll_code.n_code << RT5677_PLL_N_SFT | - pll_code.k_bp << RT5677_PLL_K_BP_SFT | - (pll_code.k_bp ? 0 : pll_code.k_code)); + pll_code.n_code << RT5677_PLL_N_SFT | pll_code.k_code); regmap_write(rt5677->regmap, RT5677_PLL1_CTRL2, (pll_code.m_bp ? 0 : pll_code.m_code) << RT5677_PLL_M_SFT | pll_code.m_bp << RT5677_PLL_M_BP_SFT); diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.h b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.h index af4e9c7..08252e7 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.h +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/rt5677.h @@ -1425,14 +1425,6 @@ enum { RT5677_AIFS, };
-struct rt5677_pll_code { - bool m_bp; /* Indicates bypass m code or not. */ - bool k_bp; /* Indicates bypass k code or not. */ - int m_code; - int n_code; - int k_code; -}; - struct rt5677_priv { struct snd_soc_codec *codec; struct rt5677_platform_data pdata;
-----Original Message----- From: Axel Lin [mailto:axel.lin@ingics.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:42 PM To: Mark Brown Cc: Oder Chiou; Liam Girdwood; alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Subject: [PATCH RFC/RFT] ASoC: rt5677: Convert to use rl6231_pll_calc
The implementation of rt5677_pll_calc() has the same logic of rl6231_pll_calc(). The only difference is the lower boundary checking for freq_in.
This patch calls rl6231_pll_calc() instead of open-coded. The k_bp of struct rt5677_pll_code is always false, thus also remove the code to check pll_code.k_bp.
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin axel.lin@ingics.com
Tested-by: Oder Chiou oder_chiou@realtek.com
Hi Oder, This patch removes the usage of k_bp from struct rt5677_pll_code because it is always false. I think if k_bp is necessay in the further development, maybe it's better to add it to rl6231_pll_code. How do you think?
It is the better way, thanks.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:41:31PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
The implementation of rt5677_pll_calc() has the same logic of rl6231_pll_calc(). The only difference is the lower boundary checking for freq_in.
This patch calls rl6231_pll_calc() instead of open-coded. The k_bp of struct rt5677_pll_code is always false, thus also remove the code to check pll_code.k_bp.
Applied, thanks.
participants (3)
-
Axel Lin
-
Mark Brown
-
Oder Chiou