[alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND] ASoC: rt298: correct index default value
Some of the default value on rt298_index_def are incorrect. Change them to the correct value.
Signed-off-by: Bard Liao bardliao@realtek.com --- This patch is base on topic/rt298 branch. --- sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c b/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c index ff126a7..8c5cb7e 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c @@ -50,24 +50,24 @@ struct rt298_priv { };
static struct reg_default rt298_index_def[] = { - { 0x01, 0xaaaa }, - { 0x02, 0x8aaa }, + { 0x01, 0xa5a8 }, + { 0x02, 0x8e95 }, { 0x03, 0x0002 }, - { 0x04, 0xaf01 }, - { 0x08, 0x000d }, - { 0x09, 0xd810 }, - { 0x0a, 0x0120 }, + { 0x04, 0xaf67 }, + { 0x08, 0x200f }, + { 0x09, 0xd010 }, + { 0x0a, 0x0100 }, { 0x0b, 0x0000 }, { 0x0d, 0x2800 }, - { 0x0f, 0x0000 }, - { 0x19, 0x0a17 }, + { 0x0f, 0x0022 }, + { 0x19, 0x0217 }, { 0x20, 0x0020 }, { 0x33, 0x0208 }, { 0x46, 0x0300 }, - { 0x49, 0x0004 }, - { 0x4f, 0x50e9 }, - { 0x50, 0x2000 }, - { 0x63, 0x2902 }, + { 0x49, 0x4004 }, + { 0x4f, 0x50c9 }, + { 0x50, 0x3000 }, + { 0x63, 0x1b02 }, { 0x67, 0x1111 }, { 0x68, 0x1016 }, { 0x69, 0x273f },
The patch
ASoC: rt298: correct index default value
has been applied to the asoc tree at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound.git
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail.
Thanks, Mark
From 7ba6e4ef76c7e43101bd5e0f8987c11a8ed0d325 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bard Liao bardliao@realtek.com Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:21:32 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ASoC: rt298: correct index default value
Some of the default value on rt298_index_def are incorrect. Change them to the correct value.
Signed-off-by: Bard Liao bardliao@realtek.com Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org --- sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c b/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c index 3c2f0f8d6266..d3e30a645ae3 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/rt298.c @@ -50,24 +50,24 @@ struct rt298_priv { };
static struct reg_default rt298_index_def[] = { - { 0x01, 0xaaaa }, - { 0x02, 0x8aaa }, + { 0x01, 0xa5a8 }, + { 0x02, 0x8e95 }, { 0x03, 0x0002 }, - { 0x04, 0xaf01 }, - { 0x08, 0x000d }, - { 0x09, 0xd810 }, - { 0x0a, 0x0120 }, + { 0x04, 0xaf67 }, + { 0x08, 0x200f }, + { 0x09, 0xd010 }, + { 0x0a, 0x0100 }, { 0x0b, 0x0000 }, { 0x0d, 0x2800 }, - { 0x0f, 0x0000 }, - { 0x19, 0x0a17 }, + { 0x0f, 0x0022 }, + { 0x19, 0x0217 }, { 0x20, 0x0020 }, { 0x33, 0x0208 }, { 0x46, 0x0300 }, - { 0x49, 0x0004 }, - { 0x4f, 0x50e9 }, - { 0x50, 0x2000 }, - { 0x63, 0x2902 }, + { 0x49, 0x4004 }, + { 0x4f, 0x50c9 }, + { 0x50, 0x3000 }, + { 0x63, 0x1b02 }, { 0x67, 0x1111 }, { 0x68, 0x1016 }, { 0x69, 0x273f },
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:21:32PM +0800, Bard Liao wrote:
Some of the default value on rt298_index_def are incorrect. Change them to the correct value.
Signed-off-by: Bard Liao bardliao@realtek.com
This patch is base on topic/rt298 branch.
...and the reason this was conflicting when I tried to apply it before was that there's a change on the topic/rt286 branch for this CODEC. Please, if there's issues with things applying like this talk about them and say what other branches things depend on rather than sending something that applies on one branch and then still needs cleanup in the merge - that's what the issue is when things don't apply.
participants (2)
-
Bard Liao -
Mark Brown