[alsa-devel] [PATCHv2] ASoC: fsl-sai: using 'lsb-first' property instead of 'big-endian-data'.
The 'big-endian-data' property is originally used to indicate whether the LSB firstly or MSB firstly will be transmitted to the CODEC or received from the CODEC, and there has nothing relation to the memory data.
Generally, if the audio data in big endian format, which will be using the bytes reversion, Here this can only be used to bits reversion.
So using the 'lsb-first' instead of 'big-endian-data' can make the code to be readable easier and more easy to understand what this property is used to do.
This property used for configuring whether the LSB or the MSB is transmitted first for the fifo data.
Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li Li.Xiubo@freescale.com Cc: Nicolin Chen nicoleotsuka@gmail.com --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt | 8 ++++---- sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c | 6 +++--- sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt index 06a405e..4956b14 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@ Required properties: See ../pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt for details of the property values. - big-endian: Boolean property, required if all the FTM_PWM registers are big-endian rather than little-endian. -- big-endian-data: If this property is absent, the little endian mode will - be in use as default, or the big endian mode will be in use for all the - fifo data. +- lsb-first: Configures whether the LSB or the MSB is transmitted first for + the fifo data. If this property is absent, the MSB is transmitted first as + default, or the LSB is transmitted first. - fsl,sai-synchronous-rx: This is a boolean property. If present, indicating that SAI will work in the synchronous mode (sync Tx with Rx) which means both the transimitter and receiver will send and receive data by following @@ -53,5 +53,5 @@ sai2: sai@40031000 { dmas = <&edma0 0 VF610_EDMA_MUXID0_SAI2_TX>, <&edma0 0 VF610_EDMA_MUXID0_SAI2_RX>; big-endian; - big-endian-data; + lsb-first; }; diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c index a6eb784..7eeb1dd 100644 --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static int fsl_sai_set_dai_fmt_tr(struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai, bool tx = fsl_dir == FSL_FMT_TRANSMITTER; u32 val_cr2 = 0, val_cr4 = 0;
- if (!sai->big_endian_data) + if (!sai->is_lsb_first) val_cr4 |= FSL_SAI_CR4_MF;
/* DAI mode */ @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ static int fsl_sai_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, val_cr5 |= FSL_SAI_CR5_WNW(word_width); val_cr5 |= FSL_SAI_CR5_W0W(word_width);
- if (sai->big_endian_data) + if (sai->is_lsb_first) val_cr5 |= FSL_SAI_CR5_FBT(0); else val_cr5 |= FSL_SAI_CR5_FBT(word_width - 1); @@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ static int fsl_sai_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "fsl,imx6sx-sai")) sai->sai_on_imx = true;
- sai->big_endian_data = of_property_read_bool(np, "big-endian-data"); + sai->is_lsb_first = of_property_read_bool(np, "lsb-first");
res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res); diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h index 2cded44..3466720 100644 --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ struct fsl_sai { struct clk *bus_clk; struct clk *mclk_clk[FSL_SAI_MCLK_MAX];
- bool big_endian_data; + bool is_lsb_first; bool is_dsp_mode; bool sai_on_imx; bool synchronous[2];
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:12:12AM +0100, Xiubo Li wrote:
The 'big-endian-data' property is originally used to indicate whether the LSB firstly or MSB firstly will be transmitted to the CODEC or received from the CODEC, and there has nothing relation to the memory data.
Generally, if the audio data in big endian format, which will be using the bytes reversion, Here this can only be used to bits reversion.
So using the 'lsb-first' instead of 'big-endian-data' can make the code to be readable easier and more easy to understand what this property is used to do.
This property used for configuring whether the LSB or the MSB is transmitted first for the fifo data.
Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li Li.Xiubo@freescale.com Cc: Nicolin Chen nicoleotsuka@gmail.com
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt | 8 ++++---- sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c | 6 +++--- sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt index 06a405e..4956b14 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl-sai.txt @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@ Required properties: See ../pinctrl/pinctrl-bindings.txt for details of the property values.
- big-endian: Boolean property, required if all the FTM_PWM registers are big-endian rather than little-endian.
-- big-endian-data: If this property is absent, the little endian mode will
- be in use as default, or the big endian mode will be in use for all the
- fifo data.
+- lsb-first: Configures whether the LSB or the MSB is transmitted first for
- the fifo data. If this property is absent, the MSB is transmitted first as
- default, or the LSB is transmitted first.
Both Nicolin [1] and Mark [2] asked for the old property to be kept around for compatibility reasons. Those requests seem to have been ignored entirely; the commit message doesn't even describe why you believe removing support for the old property is safe.
So NAK unless this patch is updated to either:
- Keep support for the old property, but mark it as deprecated in the documentation (having a warning if said property is used is also fine).
- Describe why it is safe to remove the property outright, and both Mark and Nicolin agree that this is fine.
The former is the preferred way of doing things, and the latter should be the exceptional case. We don't even save much here my dropping support for the old property.
I have no proeprty with addition of the the new property; the rationale for the new naming makes sense to me.
Thanks, Mark.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140827070544.GO17528@sirena.org.uk [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAGoOwPSTJaT0UA4yaYR0x49C8UHbmKAR8PzUfV9ZWVW5XBfV5w...
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:06:01PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:12:12AM +0100, Xiubo Li wrote:
The 'big-endian-data' property is originally used to indicate whether the LSB firstly or MSB firstly will be transmitted to the CODEC or received from the CODEC, and there has nothing relation to the memory data.
Both Nicolin [1] and Mark [2] asked for the old property to be kept around for compatibility reasons. Those requests seem to have been ignored entirely; the commit message doesn't even describe why you believe removing support for the old property is safe.
The response was that the relevant chips aren't out in the wild so it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone would have a real DT with this option enabled. I'll defer to Nicolin on if that's the case or not.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:06:01PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:12:12AM +0100, Xiubo Li wrote:
The 'big-endian-data' property is originally used to indicate whether the LSB firstly or MSB firstly will be transmitted to the CODEC or received from the CODEC, and there has nothing relation to the memory data.
Both Nicolin [1] and Mark [2] asked for the old property to be kept around for compatibility reasons. Those requests seem to have been ignored entirely; the commit message doesn't even describe why you believe removing support for the old property is safe.
The response was that the relevant chips aren't out in the wild so it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone would have a real DT with this option enabled. I'll defer to Nicolin on if that's the case or not.
Yea, it sounds like so. I thought Vf610 also used this property. But if only LS1 using it, I think we may consent this rename right?
Nicolin
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:40:11PM +0100, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:06:01PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:12:12AM +0100, Xiubo Li wrote:
The 'big-endian-data' property is originally used to indicate whether the LSB firstly or MSB firstly will be transmitted to the CODEC or received from the CODEC, and there has nothing relation to the memory data.
Both Nicolin [1] and Mark [2] asked for the old property to be kept around for compatibility reasons. Those requests seem to have been ignored entirely; the commit message doesn't even describe why you believe removing support for the old property is safe.
The response was that the relevant chips aren't out in the wild so it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone would have a real DT with this option enabled. I'll defer to Nicolin on if that's the case or not.
Yea, it sounds like so. I thought Vf610 also used this property. But if only LS1 using it, I think we may consent this rename right?
If you two are happy, then fine by me. My only concern was that the rationale for this being safe wasn't in the commit message.
Mark.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 06:26:02PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 05:40:11PM +0100, Nicolin Chen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:06:01PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:12:12AM +0100, Xiubo Li wrote:
The 'big-endian-data' property is originally used to indicate whether the LSB firstly or MSB firstly will be transmitted to the CODEC or received from the CODEC, and there has nothing relation to the memory data.
Both Nicolin [1] and Mark [2] asked for the old property to be kept around for compatibility reasons. Those requests seem to have been ignored entirely; the commit message doesn't even describe why you believe removing support for the old property is safe.
The response was that the relevant chips aren't out in the wild so it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone would have a real DT with this option enabled. I'll defer to Nicolin on if that's the case or not.
Yea, it sounds like so. I thought Vf610 also used this property. But if only LS1 using it, I think we may consent this rename right?
If you two are happy, then fine by me. My only concern was that the rationale for this being safe wasn't in the commit message.
Agreed, it's better to be described in the commit comments as well.
And regarding the compatibility with the old DT, I personally prefer it to be added in the change for safety but if this case is allowable which I'm not so sure about it, I'm fairly okay with the rename.
Nicolin
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:40:20AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
Agreed, it's better to be described in the commit comments as well.
And regarding the compatibility with the old DT, I personally prefer it to be added in the change for safety but if this case is allowable which I'm not so sure about it, I'm fairly okay with the rename.
If you're happy I can easily add a note, but keeping the old property would remove all doubt :) I'll wait for either an ack or a respin.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 08:11:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:40:20AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
Agreed, it's better to be described in the commit comments as well.
And regarding the compatibility with the old DT, I personally prefer it to be added in the change for safety but if this case is allowable which I'm not so sure about it, I'm fairly okay with the rename.
If you're happy I can easily add a note, but keeping the old property
That will be helpful, thank you :)
would remove all doubt :) I'll wait for either an ack or a respin.
Yea, I'm fine with it. Acked.
Thanks Nicolin
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 03:12:12PM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
The 'big-endian-data' property is originally used to indicate whether the LSB firstly or MSB firstly will be transmitted to the CODEC or received from the CODEC, and there has nothing relation to the memory data.
Applied, thanks.
participants (4)
-
Mark Brown -
Mark Rutland -
Nicolin Chen -
Xiubo Li