From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: qcom: add sdm845 sound card support Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:35:27 +0530 Message-ID: <20180619050527.GR25852@vkoul-mobl> References: <1529320591-22434-1-git-send-email-rohitkr@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1529320591-22434-1-git-send-email-rohitkr@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rohit kumar Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, plai@codeaurora.org, bgoswami@codeaurora.org, perex@perex.cz, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, tiwai@suse.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 18-06-18, 16:46, Rohit kumar wrote: > +struct sdm845_snd_data { > + struct snd_soc_card *card; > + struct regulator *vdd_supply; > + struct snd_soc_dai_link dai_link[]; > +}; > + > +static struct mutex pri_mi2s_res_lock; > +static struct mutex quat_tdm_res_lock; any reason why the locks can't be part of sdm845_snd_data? Also why do we need two locks ? > +static atomic_t pri_mi2s_clk_count; > +static atomic_t quat_tdm_clk_count; Any specific reason for using atomic variables? > +static unsigned int tdm_slot_offset[8] = {0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28}; > + > +static int sdm845_tdm_snd_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, > + struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params) > +{ > + struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data; > + struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai; > + int ret = 0; > + int channels, slot_width; > + > + channels = params_channels(params); > + if (channels < 1 || channels > 8) { I though ch = 0 would be caught by framework and IIRC ASoC doesn't support more than 8 channels > + pr_err("%s: invalid param channels %d\n", > + __func__, channels); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + switch (params_format(params)) { > + case SNDRV_PCM_FORMAT_S32_LE: > + case SNDRV_PCM_FORMAT_S24_LE: > + case SNDRV_PCM_FORMAT_S16_LE: > + slot_width = 32; > + break; > + default: > + pr_err("%s: invalid param format 0x%x\n", > + __func__, params_format(params)); why not use dev_err, bonus you get device name printer with the logs :) > +static int sdm845_snd_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream) > +{ > + unsigned int fmt = SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS; > + struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data; > + struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai = rtd->cpu_dai; > + > + pr_debug("%s: dai_id: 0x%x\n", __func__, cpu_dai->id); It is good for debug but not very useful here, so removing it would be good > + switch (cpu_dai->id) { > + case PRIMARY_MI2S_RX: > + case PRIMARY_MI2S_TX: > + mutex_lock(&pri_mi2s_res_lock); > + if (atomic_inc_return(&pri_mi2s_clk_count) == 1) { > + snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(cpu_dai, > + Q6AFE_LPASS_CLK_ID_MCLK_1, > + DEFAULT_MCLK_RATE, SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK); > + snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(cpu_dai, > + Q6AFE_LPASS_CLK_ID_PRI_MI2S_IBIT, > + DEFAULT_BCLK_RATE, SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK); > + } > + mutex_unlock(&pri_mi2s_res_lock); why do we need locking here? Can you please explain that. > + snd_soc_dai_set_fmt(cpu_dai, fmt); > + break; empty line after break helps in readability > +static int sdm845_sbc_parse_of(struct snd_soc_card *card) > +{ > + struct device *dev = card->dev; > + struct snd_soc_dai_link *link; > + struct device_node *np, *codec, *platform, *cpu, *node; > + int ret, num_links; > + struct sdm845_snd_data *data; > + > + ret = snd_soc_of_parse_card_name(card, "qcom,model"); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "Error parsing card name: %d\n", ret); > + return ret; > + } > + > + node = dev->of_node; > + > + /* DAPM routes */ > + if (of_property_read_bool(node, "qcom,audio-routing")) { > + ret = snd_soc_of_parse_audio_routing(card, > + "qcom,audio-routing"); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + } so if we dont find audio-routing, then? we seems to continue.. -- ~Vinod