[alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: add tda7419 audio processor driver

[Matt Porter]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:29:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:35:48AM -0500, Matt Porter wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:00:38AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:51:28PM -0500, Matt Porter wrote:
> 
> > > > +static struct snd_kcontrol_new tda7419_controls[] = {
> > > > +SOC_ENUM("Main Source Select", soc_enum_main_src_sel),
> 
> > > Should this be a DAPM route?
> 
> > Ultimately yes. I initially took the path of ignoring DAPM support in
> > interests of getting some clean done. Is it ok to merge DAPM support
> > later or do you prefer just having it in the intitial driver? For
> > routes, it'll include Main/Second source selects, the Rear Source
> > switch, and Mix enable at least.
> 
> You definitely shouldn't be implementing things that should be in DAPM
> as non-DAPM controls.

Ok, I addressed this by adding DAPM support in v2.

> > > > +	regmap_write(tda7419->regmap, TDA7419_ATTENUATOR_SUB_REG, 0xe0);
> 
> > > This looks like it's setting default volumes - just leave those at the
> > > chip defaults and let userspace handle setting them, what works for one
> > > board may be totally inappropriate on another board and using the chip
> > > default means we've got some fixed thing we don't need to discuss.
> 
> > This is actually setting the default/cache to the first mute value due
> > to the assumption in my implementation of the tda7419-specific get/set
> > for these registers. It simplified the code a bit to have these
> > initialized like this. e.g. for the attenuator group of registers,
> > x11xxxxx are all mute values, so 0xe0 is setting these regs to that
> > first mute value to simplify things. I'll take another look at
> > eliminating this. As it is, it does not change the fact that the actual
> > reset value of 0xff is also mute from a user POV.
> 
> If it is useful it definitely needs a comment explaining what's
> happening and that there's no practical change to the configuration.  It
> would be nicer to be robust against the device getting a wider range of
> values in the register but that seems plausible.

I did some rework to make this unnecessary in v2.

Thanks,
Matt