[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: wm8741: Fix setting BCLK and LRCLK polarity
After checking the code and the datasheet, it seems like we are handling the clock inversion (SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF and SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF) not correctly.
From the datasheet (Table 58):
R5 Format Control, BITS[5:4], [BCP:LRP]: (0) 00 = normal BCLK, normal LRCLK (1) 01 = normal BCLK, inverted LRCLK <-- Fix this (2) 10 = inverted BCLK, normal LRCLK (3) 11 = inverted BCLK, inverted LRCLK <-- Fix this
Signed-off-by: Sergej Sawazki sergej@taudac.com --- sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c index 3c96af0..a394dbe 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c @@ -333,13 +333,13 @@ static int wm8741_set_dai_fmt(struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai, switch (fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_INV_MASK) { case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_NF: break; - case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF: + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF: iface |= 0x10; break; case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_NF: iface |= 0x20; break; - case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF: + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF: iface |= 0x30; break; default:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:23:02PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
After checking the code and the datasheet, it seems like we are handling the clock inversion (SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF and SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF) not correctly.
From the datasheet (Table 58):
R5 Format Control, BITS[5:4], [BCP:LRP]: (0) 00 = normal BCLK, normal LRCLK (1) 01 = normal BCLK, inverted LRCLK <-- Fix this (2) 10 = inverted BCLK, normal LRCLK (3) 11 = inverted BCLK, inverted LRCLK <-- Fix this
Signed-off-by: Sergej Sawazki sergej@taudac.com
Acked-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com
Thanks, Charle
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:23:02PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
After checking the code and the datasheet, it seems like we are handling the clock inversion (SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF and SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF) not correctly.
This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
Am 03.11.2017 um 12:45 schrieb Mark Brown:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:23:02PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
After checking the code and the datasheet, it seems like we are handling the clock inversion (SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF and SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF) not correctly.
This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
It applies against "for-next" (e67852427fb). Is it the wrong branch?
Sergej
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:05:30PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
Am 03.11.2017 um 12:45 schrieb Mark Brown:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:23:02PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
After checking the code and the datasheet, it seems like we are handling the clock inversion (SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF and SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF) not correctly.
This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
It applies against "for-next" (e67852427fb). Is it the wrong branch?
It didn't apply against my current for-next branch when I tried, are you sure you were working with something up to date? I don't even have a copy of that commit locally, even in the reflog...
In general I apply things against any existing topic branch for the part, or against any fixes branch, or against Linus' tags. Exactly what depends on what kind of change it is and if there's a branch already there.
Am 03.11.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Mark Brown:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:05:30PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
Am 03.11.2017 um 12:45 schrieb Mark Brown:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 02:23:02PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
After checking the code and the datasheet, it seems like we are handling the clock inversion (SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF and SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF) not correctly.
This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
It applies against "for-next" (e67852427fb). Is it the wrong branch?
It didn't apply against my current for-next branch when I tried, are you sure you were working with something up to date? I don't even have a copy of that commit locally, even in the reflog...
In general I apply things against any existing topic branch for the part, or against any fixes branch, or against Linus' tags. Exactly what depends on what kind of change it is and if there's a branch already there.
That commit is the head of my current for-next branch:
commit e67852427fb5e3ea794302f2d0b2939e07aca8cf (origin/for-next) Merge: 16632a3 a10953f eaf8abc 6bd25aa b614583 Author: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org Date: Fri Nov 3 12:49:29 2017 +0100
Merge remote-tracking branches 'asoc/topic/ts3a277e', 'asoc/topic /wm8741', 'asoc/topic/wm97xx' and 'asoc/topic/zte' into asoc-next
On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 06:38:26PM +0100, Sergej Sawazki wrote:
Am 03.11.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Mark Brown:
It applies against "for-next" (e67852427fb). Is it the wrong branch?
It didn't apply against my current for-next branch when I tried, are you sure you were working with something up to date? I don't even have a copy of that commit locally, even in the reflog...
In general I apply things against any existing topic branch for the part, or against any fixes branch, or against Linus' tags. Exactly what depends on what kind of change it is and if there's a branch already there.
That commit is the head of my current for-next branch:
commit e67852427fb5e3ea794302f2d0b2939e07aca8cf (origin/for-next) Merge: 16632a3 a10953f eaf8abc 6bd25aa b614583 Author: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org Date: Fri Nov 3 12:49:29 2017 +0100
Hrm, so that's newer than what you sent against... I did try for-next at whatever point I was building things up and it didn't apply cleanly. In any case, like I say you need to resend.
The patch
ASoC: wm8741: Fix setting BCLK and LRCLK polarity
has been applied to the asoc tree at
https://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 81b3cc55afc3cde54df98f93fbd4704fab7cc0e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergej Sawazki sergej@taudac.com Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:34:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ASoC: wm8741: Fix setting BCLK and LRCLK polarity
After checking the code and the datasheet, it seems like we are handling the clock inversion (SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF and SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF) not correctly.
From the datasheet (Table 58):
R5 Format Control, BITS[5:4], [BCP:LRP]: (0) 00 = normal BCLK, normal LRCLK (1) 01 = normal BCLK, inverted LRCLK <-- Fix this (2) 10 = inverted BCLK, normal LRCLK (3) 11 = inverted BCLK, inverted LRCLK <-- Fix this
Signed-off-by: Sergej Sawazki sergej@taudac.com Acked-by: Charles Keepax ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com Signed-off-by: Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org --- sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c index 3c96af057a3e..a394dbee77aa 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8741.c @@ -333,13 +333,13 @@ static int wm8741_set_dai_fmt(struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai, switch (fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_INV_MASK) { case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_NF: break; - case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF: + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF: iface |= 0x10; break; case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_NF: iface |= 0x20; break; - case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_NB_IF: + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_IB_IF: iface |= 0x30; break; default:
participants (3)
-
Charles Keepax -
Mark Brown -
Sergej Sawazki