[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_ssi: Override bit clock rate based on slot number
Nicolin Chen
nicoleotsuka at gmail.com
Thu Sep 14 01:01:48 CEST 2017
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:02:20AM +0200, Arnaud Mouiche wrote:
> >Could you please give me a few set of examples of how you set
> >set_sysclk(), set_tdm_slot() with the current driver? The idea
> >here is to figure out a way to calculate the bclk in hw_params
> >without getting set_sysclk() involved any more.
> Here is one, where a bclk = 4*16*fs is expected
> In another setup, there are 8 x 16 bits slots, whatever the number
> of active channels is.
> In this case bclk = 128 * fs
> The number of slots is completely arbitrary. Some slots can even be
> reserved for communication between codecs that don't communicate
> with linux.
In summary, bclk = sample rate * slots * slot_width;
I will update my patch soon.
> >Unfortunately, it looks like a work around to me. I understand
> >the idea of leaving set_sysclk() out there to override the bit
> >clock is convenient, but it is not a standard ALSA design and
> >may eventually introduce new problems like today.
>
> I agree. I'm not conservative at all concerning this question.
> I don't see a way to remove set_sysclk without breaking current TDM
> users anyway, at least for those who don't have their code
> upstreamed.
Which TDM case would be broken by this removal? The only impact
that I can see is that the ASoC core returns an ENOTSUPP for a
set_sysclk() call now, which is something that a dai-link driver
should have taken care of anyway.
> All information provided through snd_soc_dai_set_tdm_slot( cpu_dai,
> mask, mask, slots, width ) should be enough
> In this case, for TDM users
>
> bclk = slots * width * fs (where slots is != channels)
> will manage 99 % of the cases.
> And the remaining 1% will concern people who need to hack the kernel
> so widely they don't care about the set_sysclk removal.
A patch from those people will be always welcome.
> - fsl-asoc-card.c : *something will break since
> snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk returned code is checked*
I've already submitted a patch to ignore all ENOTSUPP.
More information about the Alsa-devel
mailing list