[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: ssm2602: Fix ADC powerup sequencing

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Marco Felsch <m.felsch at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 18-05-23 11:53, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:46:49PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>> > Hi Rob,
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 11:14 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Marco Felsch <m.felsch at pengutronix.de> wrote:
>> > > > From: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel at pengutronix.de>
>> > > >
>> > > > According to the ssm2603 data sheet (control register sequencing), the
>> > > > digital core should be activated only after all necessary bits in the
>> > > > power register are enabled, and a delay determined by the decoupling
>> > > > capacitor on the VMID pin has passed. If the digital core is activated
>> > > > too early, or even before the ADC is powered up, audible artifacts
>> > > > appear at the beginning of the recorded signal.
>> > > >
>> > > > The digital core is also needed for playback, so when recording starts
>> > > > it may already be enabled. This means we cannot get the power sequence
>> > > > correct when we want to be able to start recording after playback.
>> > > >
>> > > > As a workaround put the MIC mute switch into the DAPM routes. This
>> > > > way we can keep the recording disabled until the MIC Bias has settled
>> > > > and thus get rid of audible artifacts.
>> > > >
>> > > > The delay we have to wait depends on a board specific capacitor
>> > > > connected to the VMID pins, so make the delay configurable in the device
>> > > > tree.
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel at pengutronix.de>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch at pengutronix.de>
>> > > > ---
>> > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/sound/adi,ssm2602.txt |  7 +++++
>> > > >  sound/soc/codecs/ssm2602.c                    | 30 +++++++++++++++++--
>> > > >  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > > >
>> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/adi,ssm2602.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/adi,ssm2602.txt
>> > > > index 3b3302fe399b..9334d48c0462 100644
>> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/adi,ssm2602.txt
>> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/adi,ssm2602.txt
>> > > > @@ -11,9 +11,16 @@ Required properties:
>> > > >    - reg : the I2C address of the device for I2C, the chip select
>> > > >            number for SPI.
>> > > >
>> > > > +Optional properties:
>> > > > +
>> > > > +  - startup-delay-us : delay between powering on and activating the digital
>> > > > +                       core, determined by the decoupling capacitor C on the
>> > > > +                      VMID pin: delay [µs] = C [µF] * 25000 / 3.5
>> > > > +
>> > >
>> > > We already have similarly defined property. Please reuse that. See mmc
>> > > pwrseq binding.
>> >
>> > Do you mean 'post-power-on-delay-ms' from 'mmc-pwseq-simple'?
>> > It is documented as:
>> >
>> > - post-power-on-delay-ms : Delay in ms after powering the card and
>> >         de-asserting the reset-gpios (if any)
>> >
>> > The startup delay here is not after powering the whole IC or deasserting
>> > resets and before it can be used, but after powering up a specific part
>> > of the codec (the ADC) and before unmuting the MIC input to the digital
>> > core during start of decoding. With this in mind, do you still think the
>> > property should be called the same as the mmc full-chip poweron delay?
>> > If so, would it be acceptable to use post-power-on-delay-us to keep the
>> > microsecond resolution?
>>
>> Okay, then I'd suggest something a bit more specific. Perhaps
>> "pre-unmute-delay-us" and document in a common location.
>>
>> Rob
>
> The delay is not just for the line-in/mic path it is also for the out
> path. More technical, it is needed to charge the decouple capacity which
> provides the voltage bias for the analog input/output frontends.
>
> I found the: "ti,charge-period (sound/ti,tas5086.txt)" binding which
> represents nearly the same but it is not common. One opportunity would be to
> introduce a common "charge-period-us" binding and change the ti binding the
> common binding later.
>
> Would that be okay?

Sure, sounds fine to me.

Rob