[alsa-devel] [PATCH] SMDK64XX I2S: Added machine driver for WM8580

[jassi brar]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 09:46:06AM +0900, jassi brar wrote:
>> New machine driver for WM8580 I2S i/f on SMDK64XX.
>> By default SoC-Slave is set and WM8580 is configured to use it's
>> PLLA to generate clocks from a 12MHz crystal attached to WM8580.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jassi <jassi.brar at samsung.com>
>
> I've applied this with a couple of additional fixups below.  I've added
> a dependency on BROKEN since the IISv4 support is not yet present so
> there's no chance of it working yet.
well, i sent patches for CPU support also. they are simply put on hold until
something is decided. if i were given a suggestion atleast i cud try doing that.
anyways, the machine driver will almost remain the same in future when we
the CPU support is there.

>> +static int smdk64xx_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
>> +{
>> +     struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
>> +     struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->dai->codec_dai;
>> +
>> +     /* disable the PLL */
>> +     return snd_soc_dai_set_pll(codec_dai, WM8580_PLLA, 0, 0);
>> +}
>
> Doing this will break simultaneous playback and record - whichever of
> them stops first will stop the PLL, removing the clock from the other.
> I've removed the hw_free() function as a result.
thank you. I didn't check full-duplex.

> I also note that you're not submitting and testing against the latest
> ASoC code since the PLL API has been updated so that this won't build.
> I've fixed it up this time but please do try to ensure you're working
> with the latest code when submitting patches.
I did see for-2.6.33 tree but wasn't sure when i shud start submitting
against that.
It was only 2.6.32 when i started. And i tested playback/capture @ all
supported rates
in that version.

I am new to the process, please bear this time. Please reject a patch
and suggest how to do, if it's too much work for you.

Btw, I understand as soon as i see a newer for-2.6.xx branch i shud start
submitting against that. Right?