[PATCH v2] ASoC: fsl-asoc-card: Remove fsl_asoc_card_set_bias_level function

[Shengjiu Wang]

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 4:01 PM Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Having two nits and one question, inline:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 05:47:02PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > @@ -182,6 +180,69 @@ static int fsl_asoc_card_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >                                              cpu_priv->slot_width);
> >               if (ret && ret != -ENOTSUPP) {
> >                       dev_err(dev, "failed to set TDM slot for cpu dai\n");
> > +                     goto out;
> > +             }
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     /* Specific configuration for PLL */
> > +     if (codec_priv->pll_id && codec_priv->fll_id) {
> > +             if (priv->sample_format == SNDRV_PCM_FORMAT_S24_LE)
> > +                     pll_out = priv->sample_rate * 384;
> > +             else
> > +                     pll_out = priv->sample_rate * 256;
> > +
> > +             ret = snd_soc_dai_set_pll(asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, 0),
> > +                                       codec_priv->pll_id,
> > +                                       codec_priv->mclk_id,
> > +                                       codec_priv->mclk_freq, pll_out);
> > +             if (ret) {
> > +                     dev_err(dev, "failed to start FLL: %d\n", ret);
> > +                     goto out;
> > +             }
> > +
> > +             ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, 0),
> > +                                          codec_priv->fll_id,
> > +                                          pll_out, SND_SOC_CLOCK_IN);
>
> Just came into my mind: do we need some protection here to prevent
> PLL/SYSCLK reconfiguration if TX/RX end up with different values?
>
Sorry,  not really catching your point. could you please elaborate?
Why do TX/RX end up with different values?

best regards
wang shengiu
> > +     return 0;
> > +
> > +out:
> > +     priv->streams &= ~BIT(substream->stream);
> > +     return ret;
>
> Rather than "out:" which doesn't explicitly indicate an error-out,
> "fail:" would be better, following what we used in probe().
>
> > +static int fsl_asoc_card_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> > +{
> > +     struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> > +     struct fsl_asoc_card_priv *priv = snd_soc_card_get_drvdata(rtd->card);
> > +     struct codec_priv *codec_priv = &priv->codec_priv;
> > +     struct device *dev = rtd->card->dev;
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     priv->streams &= ~BIT(substream->stream);
> > +
>
> > +     if (!priv->streams && codec_priv->pll_id &&
> > +         codec_priv->fll_id) {
>
> This now can fit into single line :)