On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:20:35AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:

Hi

...

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 05:17:09PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:

...

There are two asrc module in imx8qm, each module has different clock configuration, and the DMA type is EDMA.

So in this patch, we define the new clocks, refine the clock map, and include struct fsl_asrc_soc_data for different soc usage.

The EDMA channel is fixed with each dma request, one dma request corresponding to one dma channel. So we need to request dma channel with dma request of asrc module.

Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang shengjiu.wang@nxp.com

sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc.h | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc_dma.c | 39 ++++++++++++---- 3 files changed, 167 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)

...

diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc_dma.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc_dma.c index d6146de9acd2..dbb07a486504

100644

...

--- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc_dma.c +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc_dma.c @@ -199,19 +199,40 @@ static int fsl_asrc_dma_hw_params(struct snd_soc_component *component,

  /* Get DMA request of Back-End */
  tmp_chan = dma_request_slave_channel(dev_be, tx ? "tx" : "rx");

• tmp_data = tmp_chan->private;
  

• pair->dma_data.dma_request = tmp_data->dma_request;
  

• dma_release_channel(tmp_chan);
  

• /* tmp_chan may be NULL for it is already allocated by Back-End */
  

• if (tmp_chan) {
  

•         tmp_data = tmp_chan->private;
  

•         if (tmp_data)
  

•                 pair->dma_data.dma_request =
  

• tmp_data->dma_request;

If this patch is supposed to add a !tmp_chan case for EDMA, we probably shouldn't mute the !tmp_data case because dma_request will be NULL, although the code previously didn't have a check either. I mean we might need to error-out for !tmp_chan. Or... is this intentional?

Yes, intentional. May be we can change to

    if (!asrc_priv->soc->use_edma) {
            /* Get DMA request of Back-End */
            tmp_chan = dma_request_slave_channel(dev_be, tx ? "tx" : "rx");
            tmp_data = tmp_chan->private;
            pair->dma_data.dma_request = tmp_data->dma_request;
            dma_release_channel(tmp_chan);

            /* Get DMA request of Front-End */
            tmp_chan = fsl_asrc_get_dma_channel(pair, dir);
            tmp_data = tmp_chan->private;
            pair->dma_data.dma_request2 = tmp_data->dma_request;
            pair->dma_data.peripheral_type = tmp_data->peripheral_type;
            pair->dma_data.priority = tmp_data->priority;
            dma_release_channel(tmp_chan);
    }

Oh...now I understand..yea, I think this would be better.

Would you please change it in v2?

I am fine with other places, so may add:

Acked-by: Nicolin Chen nicoleotsuka@gmail.com

Thanks