From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id C986AE00902; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:59:38 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [193.201.172.119 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (picmaster[at]mail.bg) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Received: from mx3.mail.bg (mx3.mail.bg [193.201.172.119]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77E5E008EC for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:59:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.40] (unknown [93.152.143.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx3.mail.bg (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45E2B2029F96; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:59:32 +0200 (EET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mail.bg; s=default; t=1421902772; bh=2KEM1KqqdrfRI00KDpOsabYMvlLHvfUREL3M5E4xgDc=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=SI27RKoH/A045m2+MPgMUtP3WxSabjkImiWMQ/HHGD68ZtmD/TcX/Qm/97SMW1Ha4 rDiWhn8P+dOE8B7Fb7yAbzrwBDAie3trQs4Gx6qqFU0AxjVcqoOiVXk0zMT4qkfAVm WA41jvboJh6ng2dLvGf0cCgCu2Pj2LE9ZFWPOH9Q= Message-ID: <54C083B4.50206@mail.bg> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:59:32 +0200 From: Nikolay Dimitrov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fabio Estevam References: <54BED2E8.70901@mail.bg> <54BEF411.9080503@mail.bg> <54BF0F40.6030407@mail.bg> <54C03C72.3050502@mail.bg> In-Reply-To: Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: Audio glitch with SGTL5000 X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:59:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Fabio, On 01/22/2015 02:00 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Nikolay, > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov wrote: > >> Hehe, I'm not sure that you cleared the bit actually :). I think that >> with mask 0 you're not writing to the I2C reg at all - you can check >> the return value of snd_soc_update_bits(), should be 0 (no error, no >> value changed). But would be great if you can also monitor the I2C bus >> traffic to confirm whether you really write or not to this register. >> >> Can you try to change only the last argument and hear whether it makes >> a difference, like this: >> >> snd_soc_update_bits(codec, SGTL5000_CHIP_REF_CTRL, 1, 1); >> snd_soc_update_bits(codec, SGTL5000_CHIP_REF_CTRL, 1, 0); > > My tests show the following: > > - With SMALL_POP 0 (no click) > - With SMALL_POP 1 (click) > > Yes, this sounds strange. With my patch applied we end up with > SMALL_POP 0 (default value) and I don't hear the click on mx28evk nor > mx53qsb. Well, it's possible that there's a mistake in the datasheet. If you have access to some engineers who worked on the audio codec, could be a good idea to check with them about this SMALL_POP bit. So, it looks like I'll have to stick with my ugly fix for a while. I'll share with the ML if I find a solution for my issue. Kind regards, Nikolay