All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
To: "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>
Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	"timur@kernel.org" <timur@kernel.org>,
	"Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com" <Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"tiwai@suse.com" <tiwai@suse.com>,
	"lgirdwood@gmail.com" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_asrc: refine the setting of internal clock divider
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:10:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191023191002.GB16043@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB647949BE7BDB9CD2B1B2C521E36B0@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 06:25:20AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:21:08PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > For P2P output, the output divider should align with the output sample
> > 
> > I think we should avoid "P2P" (or "M2M") keyword in the mainline code as
> > we know M2M will never get merged while somebody working with the
> > mainline and caring about new feature might be confused.
> 
> Ok. But we still curious that is there a way to upstream m2m?

Hmm..I would love to see that happening. Here is an old discussion
that you may want to take a look:
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2014-May/076797.html

> > It makes sense to me, yet I feel that the delay at the beginning of the audio
> > playback might be longer as a compromise. I am okay with this decision
> > though...
> > 
> > > The maximum divider of asrc clock is 1024, but there is no judgement
> > > for this limitaion in driver, which may cause the divider setting not
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > For non-ideal ratio mode, the clock rate should divide the sample rate
> > > with no remainder, and the quotient should be less than 1024.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>

> > > @@ -351,7 +352,9 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct fsl_asrc_pair
> > *pair)
> > >       /* We only have output clock for ideal ratio mode */
> > >       clk = asrc_priv->asrck_clk[clk_index[ideal ? OUT : IN]];
> > >
> > > -     div[IN] = clk_get_rate(clk) / inrate;
> > > +     clk_rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> > 
> > The fsl_asrc.c file has config.inclk being set to INCLK_NONE and this sets the
> > "ideal" in this function to true. So, although we tend to not use ideal ratio
> > setting for p2p cases, yet the input clock is still not physically connected, so
> > we still use output clock for div[IN] calculation?
> 
> For p2p case, it can be ideal or non-ideal.  For non-ideal, we still use
> Output clock for div calculation.
> 
> > 
> > I am thinking something simplier: if we decided not to use ideal ratio for
> > "P2P", instead of adding "bool p2p" with the confusing "ideal" in this
> > function, could we just set config.inclk to the same clock as the output one
> > for "P2P"? By doing so, "P2P" won't go through ideal ratio mode while still
> > having a clock rate from the output clock for div[IN] calculation here.
> 
> Bool p2p is to force output rate to be sample rate, no impact to ideal
> Ratio mode.

I just realized that the function has a bottom part for ideal mode
exclusively -- if we treat p2p as !ideal, those configurations will
be missing. So you're right, should have an extra boolean variable.

> > 
> > > +     rem[IN] = do_div(clk_rate, inrate);
> > > +     div[IN] = (u32)clk_rate;
> > >       if (div[IN] == 0) {
> > 
> > Could we check div[IN] and rem[IN] here? Like:
> >         if (div[IN] == 0 || div[IN] > 1024) {
> >                 pair_err();
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> >         if (!ideal && rem[IN]) {
> >                 pair_err();
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> > According to your commit log, I think the max-1024 limitation should be
> > applied to all cases, not confined to "!ideal" cases right? And we should
> > add some comments also, indicating it is limited by hardware.
> 
> For ideal mode,  my test result is  the divider not impact the output result.
> Which means it is ok for ideal mode even divider is not correct... 

OK.

> > 
> > >               pair_err("failed to support input sample rate %dHz by
> > asrck_%x\n",
> > >                               inrate, clk_index[ideal ? OUT : IN]); @@
> > > -360,11 +363,20 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct
> > > fsl_asrc_pair *pair)
> > >
> > >       clk = asrc_priv->asrck_clk[clk_index[OUT]];
> > >
> > > -     /* Use fixed output rate for Ideal Ratio mode (INCLK_NONE) */
> > > -     if (ideal)
> > > -             div[OUT] = clk_get_rate(clk) / IDEAL_RATIO_RATE;
> > > -     else
> > > -             div[OUT] = clk_get_rate(clk) / outrate;
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * When P2P mode, output rate should align with the out samplerate.
> > > +      * if set too high output rate, there will be lots of Overload.
> > > +      * When M2M mode, output rate should also need to align with the
> > > + out
> > 
> > For this "should", do you actually mean "M2M could also"? Sorry, I'm just
> > trying to understand everyting here, not intentionally being picky at words.
> > My understanding is that we still keep the ideal ratio setting because
> > "M2M" still uses it.
> 
> We use IDEAL_RATIO_RATE as output rate for m2m mode, it likes a
> Tricky operation, in order to improve the performance. I think
> The correct operation is to use the real output rate, but the performance
> Is bad.  So it is a compromise.

I see.

> > 
> > > +      * samplerate, but M2M must use less time to achieve good
> > performance.
> > > +      */
> > > +     clk_rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> > > +     if (p2p || !ideal) {
> > > +             rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, outrate);
> > > +             div[OUT] = clk_rate;
> > > +     } else {
> > > +             rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, IDEAL_RATIO_RATE);
> > > +             div[OUT] = clk_rate;
> > > +     }
> > >
> > >       if (div[OUT] == 0) {
> > >               pair_err("failed to support output sample rate %dHz by
> > > asrck_%x\n", @@ -372,6 +384,16 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct
> > fsl_asrc_pair *pair)
> > >               return -EINVAL;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > +     if (!ideal && (div[IN] > 1024 || div[OUT] > 1024 ||
> > > +                    rem[IN] != 0 || rem[OUT] != 0)) {
> > > +     if (!ideal && (div[IN] > 1024 || div[OUT] > 1024 || rem[IN] ||
> > > + rem[OUT] != 0)) {
> > 
> > So for ideal == true, these limitaions are not applied any more?
> > Remember that the "ideal" is true for "p2p == true" cases here.
> 
> No, not applied.  for ideal, the div don't impact the output result
> Even it is not accurate.

I see.

> > 
> > > +             pair_err("The divider can't be used for non ideal mode\n");
> > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > +     }
> > > +
> > > +     /* Divider range is [1, 1024] */
> > > +     div[IN] = min_t(u32, 1024, div[IN]);
> > > +     div[OUT] = min_t(u32, 1024, div[OUT]);
> > 
> > Hmm, this looks like we want to allow ideal ratio cases and p2p cases to
> > operate any way, even if the divider wasn't within the range to get the
> > in/out rates from the output clock?
> 
> Yes. We still allow the p2p = true,  ideal = false.  Note that p2p is not
> Equal to ideal.

Got it.

Overall, I feel it's better to have a naming to state the purpose
of using ideal configurations without the IDEAL_RATIO_RATE setup.
	bool use_ideal_rate;
And we can put into the asrc_config structure if there's no major
problem.

So the condition check for the calculation would be:
+	if (ideal && config->use_ideal_rate)
+		rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, IDEAL_RATIO_RATE);
+	else
+		rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, outrate);
+	div[OUT] = clk_rate;

And for that if (!ideal && div[IN]....rem[OUT]), I feel it would
be clear to have them separately, as the existing "div[IN] == 0"
and "div[OUT] == 0" checks, so that we can tell users which side
of the divider is out of range and what the sample rate and clock
rate are.

Thanks
Nicolin
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
To: "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>
Cc: "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	"timur@kernel.org" <timur@kernel.org>,
	"Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com" <Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"tiwai@suse.com" <tiwai@suse.com>,
	"lgirdwood@gmail.com" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	"perex@perex.cz" <perex@perex.cz>,
	"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_asrc: refine the setting of internal clock divider
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:10:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191023191002.GB16043@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB647949BE7BDB9CD2B1B2C521E36B0@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 06:25:20AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:21:08PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > For P2P output, the output divider should align with the output sample
> > 
> > I think we should avoid "P2P" (or "M2M") keyword in the mainline code as
> > we know M2M will never get merged while somebody working with the
> > mainline and caring about new feature might be confused.
> 
> Ok. But we still curious that is there a way to upstream m2m?

Hmm..I would love to see that happening. Here is an old discussion
that you may want to take a look:
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2014-May/076797.html

> > It makes sense to me, yet I feel that the delay at the beginning of the audio
> > playback might be longer as a compromise. I am okay with this decision
> > though...
> > 
> > > The maximum divider of asrc clock is 1024, but there is no judgement
> > > for this limitaion in driver, which may cause the divider setting not
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > For non-ideal ratio mode, the clock rate should divide the sample rate
> > > with no remainder, and the quotient should be less than 1024.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>

> > > @@ -351,7 +352,9 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct fsl_asrc_pair
> > *pair)
> > >       /* We only have output clock for ideal ratio mode */
> > >       clk = asrc_priv->asrck_clk[clk_index[ideal ? OUT : IN]];
> > >
> > > -     div[IN] = clk_get_rate(clk) / inrate;
> > > +     clk_rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> > 
> > The fsl_asrc.c file has config.inclk being set to INCLK_NONE and this sets the
> > "ideal" in this function to true. So, although we tend to not use ideal ratio
> > setting for p2p cases, yet the input clock is still not physically connected, so
> > we still use output clock for div[IN] calculation?
> 
> For p2p case, it can be ideal or non-ideal.  For non-ideal, we still use
> Output clock for div calculation.
> 
> > 
> > I am thinking something simplier: if we decided not to use ideal ratio for
> > "P2P", instead of adding "bool p2p" with the confusing "ideal" in this
> > function, could we just set config.inclk to the same clock as the output one
> > for "P2P"? By doing so, "P2P" won't go through ideal ratio mode while still
> > having a clock rate from the output clock for div[IN] calculation here.
> 
> Bool p2p is to force output rate to be sample rate, no impact to ideal
> Ratio mode.

I just realized that the function has a bottom part for ideal mode
exclusively -- if we treat p2p as !ideal, those configurations will
be missing. So you're right, should have an extra boolean variable.

> > 
> > > +     rem[IN] = do_div(clk_rate, inrate);
> > > +     div[IN] = (u32)clk_rate;
> > >       if (div[IN] == 0) {
> > 
> > Could we check div[IN] and rem[IN] here? Like:
> >         if (div[IN] == 0 || div[IN] > 1024) {
> >                 pair_err();
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> >         if (!ideal && rem[IN]) {
> >                 pair_err();
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> > According to your commit log, I think the max-1024 limitation should be
> > applied to all cases, not confined to "!ideal" cases right? And we should
> > add some comments also, indicating it is limited by hardware.
> 
> For ideal mode,  my test result is  the divider not impact the output result.
> Which means it is ok for ideal mode even divider is not correct... 

OK.

> > 
> > >               pair_err("failed to support input sample rate %dHz by
> > asrck_%x\n",
> > >                               inrate, clk_index[ideal ? OUT : IN]); @@
> > > -360,11 +363,20 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct
> > > fsl_asrc_pair *pair)
> > >
> > >       clk = asrc_priv->asrck_clk[clk_index[OUT]];
> > >
> > > -     /* Use fixed output rate for Ideal Ratio mode (INCLK_NONE) */
> > > -     if (ideal)
> > > -             div[OUT] = clk_get_rate(clk) / IDEAL_RATIO_RATE;
> > > -     else
> > > -             div[OUT] = clk_get_rate(clk) / outrate;
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * When P2P mode, output rate should align with the out samplerate.
> > > +      * if set too high output rate, there will be lots of Overload.
> > > +      * When M2M mode, output rate should also need to align with the
> > > + out
> > 
> > For this "should", do you actually mean "M2M could also"? Sorry, I'm just
> > trying to understand everyting here, not intentionally being picky at words.
> > My understanding is that we still keep the ideal ratio setting because
> > "M2M" still uses it.
> 
> We use IDEAL_RATIO_RATE as output rate for m2m mode, it likes a
> Tricky operation, in order to improve the performance. I think
> The correct operation is to use the real output rate, but the performance
> Is bad.  So it is a compromise.

I see.

> > 
> > > +      * samplerate, but M2M must use less time to achieve good
> > performance.
> > > +      */
> > > +     clk_rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> > > +     if (p2p || !ideal) {
> > > +             rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, outrate);
> > > +             div[OUT] = clk_rate;
> > > +     } else {
> > > +             rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, IDEAL_RATIO_RATE);
> > > +             div[OUT] = clk_rate;
> > > +     }
> > >
> > >       if (div[OUT] == 0) {
> > >               pair_err("failed to support output sample rate %dHz by
> > > asrck_%x\n", @@ -372,6 +384,16 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct
> > fsl_asrc_pair *pair)
> > >               return -EINVAL;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > +     if (!ideal && (div[IN] > 1024 || div[OUT] > 1024 ||
> > > +                    rem[IN] != 0 || rem[OUT] != 0)) {
> > > +     if (!ideal && (div[IN] > 1024 || div[OUT] > 1024 || rem[IN] ||
> > > + rem[OUT] != 0)) {
> > 
> > So for ideal == true, these limitaions are not applied any more?
> > Remember that the "ideal" is true for "p2p == true" cases here.
> 
> No, not applied.  for ideal, the div don't impact the output result
> Even it is not accurate.

I see.

> > 
> > > +             pair_err("The divider can't be used for non ideal mode\n");
> > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > +     }
> > > +
> > > +     /* Divider range is [1, 1024] */
> > > +     div[IN] = min_t(u32, 1024, div[IN]);
> > > +     div[OUT] = min_t(u32, 1024, div[OUT]);
> > 
> > Hmm, this looks like we want to allow ideal ratio cases and p2p cases to
> > operate any way, even if the divider wasn't within the range to get the
> > in/out rates from the output clock?
> 
> Yes. We still allow the p2p = true,  ideal = false.  Note that p2p is not
> Equal to ideal.

Got it.

Overall, I feel it's better to have a naming to state the purpose
of using ideal configurations without the IDEAL_RATIO_RATE setup.
	bool use_ideal_rate;
And we can put into the asrc_config structure if there's no major
problem.

So the condition check for the calculation would be:
+	if (ideal && config->use_ideal_rate)
+		rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, IDEAL_RATIO_RATE);
+	else
+		rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, outrate);
+	div[OUT] = clk_rate;

And for that if (!ideal && div[IN]....rem[OUT]), I feel it would
be clear to have them separately, as the existing "div[IN] == 0"
and "div[OUT] == 0" checks, so that we can tell users which side
of the divider is out of range and what the sample rate and clock
rate are.

Thanks
Nicolin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
To: "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>
Cc: "timur@kernel.org" <timur@kernel.org>,
	"Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com" <Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com>,
	"festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	"broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	"lgirdwood@gmail.com" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	"perex@perex.cz" <perex@perex.cz>,
	"tiwai@suse.com" <tiwai@suse.com>,
	"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_asrc: refine the setting of internal clock divider
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:10:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191023191002.GB16043@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB647949BE7BDB9CD2B1B2C521E36B0@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 06:25:20AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:21:08PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > For P2P output, the output divider should align with the output sample
> > 
> > I think we should avoid "P2P" (or "M2M") keyword in the mainline code as
> > we know M2M will never get merged while somebody working with the
> > mainline and caring about new feature might be confused.
> 
> Ok. But we still curious that is there a way to upstream m2m?

Hmm..I would love to see that happening. Here is an old discussion
that you may want to take a look:
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2014-May/076797.html

> > It makes sense to me, yet I feel that the delay at the beginning of the audio
> > playback might be longer as a compromise. I am okay with this decision
> > though...
> > 
> > > The maximum divider of asrc clock is 1024, but there is no judgement
> > > for this limitaion in driver, which may cause the divider setting not
> > > correct.
> > >
> > > For non-ideal ratio mode, the clock rate should divide the sample rate
> > > with no remainder, and the quotient should be less than 1024.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>

> > > @@ -351,7 +352,9 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct fsl_asrc_pair
> > *pair)
> > >       /* We only have output clock for ideal ratio mode */
> > >       clk = asrc_priv->asrck_clk[clk_index[ideal ? OUT : IN]];
> > >
> > > -     div[IN] = clk_get_rate(clk) / inrate;
> > > +     clk_rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> > 
> > The fsl_asrc.c file has config.inclk being set to INCLK_NONE and this sets the
> > "ideal" in this function to true. So, although we tend to not use ideal ratio
> > setting for p2p cases, yet the input clock is still not physically connected, so
> > we still use output clock for div[IN] calculation?
> 
> For p2p case, it can be ideal or non-ideal.  For non-ideal, we still use
> Output clock for div calculation.
> 
> > 
> > I am thinking something simplier: if we decided not to use ideal ratio for
> > "P2P", instead of adding "bool p2p" with the confusing "ideal" in this
> > function, could we just set config.inclk to the same clock as the output one
> > for "P2P"? By doing so, "P2P" won't go through ideal ratio mode while still
> > having a clock rate from the output clock for div[IN] calculation here.
> 
> Bool p2p is to force output rate to be sample rate, no impact to ideal
> Ratio mode.

I just realized that the function has a bottom part for ideal mode
exclusively -- if we treat p2p as !ideal, those configurations will
be missing. So you're right, should have an extra boolean variable.

> > 
> > > +     rem[IN] = do_div(clk_rate, inrate);
> > > +     div[IN] = (u32)clk_rate;
> > >       if (div[IN] == 0) {
> > 
> > Could we check div[IN] and rem[IN] here? Like:
> >         if (div[IN] == 0 || div[IN] > 1024) {
> >                 pair_err();
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> >         if (!ideal && rem[IN]) {
> >                 pair_err();
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> > According to your commit log, I think the max-1024 limitation should be
> > applied to all cases, not confined to "!ideal" cases right? And we should
> > add some comments also, indicating it is limited by hardware.
> 
> For ideal mode,  my test result is  the divider not impact the output result.
> Which means it is ok for ideal mode even divider is not correct... 

OK.

> > 
> > >               pair_err("failed to support input sample rate %dHz by
> > asrck_%x\n",
> > >                               inrate, clk_index[ideal ? OUT : IN]); @@
> > > -360,11 +363,20 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct
> > > fsl_asrc_pair *pair)
> > >
> > >       clk = asrc_priv->asrck_clk[clk_index[OUT]];
> > >
> > > -     /* Use fixed output rate for Ideal Ratio mode (INCLK_NONE) */
> > > -     if (ideal)
> > > -             div[OUT] = clk_get_rate(clk) / IDEAL_RATIO_RATE;
> > > -     else
> > > -             div[OUT] = clk_get_rate(clk) / outrate;
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * When P2P mode, output rate should align with the out samplerate.
> > > +      * if set too high output rate, there will be lots of Overload.
> > > +      * When M2M mode, output rate should also need to align with the
> > > + out
> > 
> > For this "should", do you actually mean "M2M could also"? Sorry, I'm just
> > trying to understand everyting here, not intentionally being picky at words.
> > My understanding is that we still keep the ideal ratio setting because
> > "M2M" still uses it.
> 
> We use IDEAL_RATIO_RATE as output rate for m2m mode, it likes a
> Tricky operation, in order to improve the performance. I think
> The correct operation is to use the real output rate, but the performance
> Is bad.  So it is a compromise.

I see.

> > 
> > > +      * samplerate, but M2M must use less time to achieve good
> > performance.
> > > +      */
> > > +     clk_rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
> > > +     if (p2p || !ideal) {
> > > +             rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, outrate);
> > > +             div[OUT] = clk_rate;
> > > +     } else {
> > > +             rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, IDEAL_RATIO_RATE);
> > > +             div[OUT] = clk_rate;
> > > +     }
> > >
> > >       if (div[OUT] == 0) {
> > >               pair_err("failed to support output sample rate %dHz by
> > > asrck_%x\n", @@ -372,6 +384,16 @@ static int fsl_asrc_config_pair(struct
> > fsl_asrc_pair *pair)
> > >               return -EINVAL;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > +     if (!ideal && (div[IN] > 1024 || div[OUT] > 1024 ||
> > > +                    rem[IN] != 0 || rem[OUT] != 0)) {
> > > +     if (!ideal && (div[IN] > 1024 || div[OUT] > 1024 || rem[IN] ||
> > > + rem[OUT] != 0)) {
> > 
> > So for ideal == true, these limitaions are not applied any more?
> > Remember that the "ideal" is true for "p2p == true" cases here.
> 
> No, not applied.  for ideal, the div don't impact the output result
> Even it is not accurate.

I see.

> > 
> > > +             pair_err("The divider can't be used for non ideal mode\n");
> > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > +     }
> > > +
> > > +     /* Divider range is [1, 1024] */
> > > +     div[IN] = min_t(u32, 1024, div[IN]);
> > > +     div[OUT] = min_t(u32, 1024, div[OUT]);
> > 
> > Hmm, this looks like we want to allow ideal ratio cases and p2p cases to
> > operate any way, even if the divider wasn't within the range to get the
> > in/out rates from the output clock?
> 
> Yes. We still allow the p2p = true,  ideal = false.  Note that p2p is not
> Equal to ideal.

Got it.

Overall, I feel it's better to have a naming to state the purpose
of using ideal configurations without the IDEAL_RATIO_RATE setup.
	bool use_ideal_rate;
And we can put into the asrc_config structure if there's no major
problem.

So the condition check for the calculation would be:
+	if (ideal && config->use_ideal_rate)
+		rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, IDEAL_RATIO_RATE);
+	else
+		rem[OUT] = do_div(clk_rate, outrate);
+	div[OUT] = clk_rate;

And for that if (!ideal && div[IN]....rem[OUT]), I feel it would
be clear to have them separately, as the existing "div[IN] == 0"
and "div[OUT] == 0" checks, so that we can tell users which side
of the divider is out of range and what the sample rate and clock
rate are.

Thanks
Nicolin

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-23 19:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-23  6:25 [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: fsl_asrc: refine the setting of internal clock divider S.j. Wang
2019-10-23  6:25 ` S.j. Wang
2019-10-23  6:25 ` S.j. Wang
2019-10-23 19:10 ` Nicolin Chen [this message]
2019-10-23 19:10   ` Nicolin Chen
2019-10-23 19:10   ` Nicolin Chen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-10-25  5:33 [alsa-devel] " S.j. Wang
2019-10-25  6:54 ` Nicolin Chen
2019-10-17  6:21 Shengjiu Wang
2019-10-17 21:54 ` Nicolin Chen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191023191002.GB16043@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com \
    --to=nicoleotsuka@gmail.com \
    --cc=Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com \
    --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=festevam@gmail.com \
    --cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=shengjiu.wang@nxp.com \
    --cc=timur@kernel.org \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.