From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rohit Kumar Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: qcom: add sdm845 sound card support Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:20:55 +0530 Message-ID: <8562b574-3738-8983-53e7-64366590fad4@codeaurora.org> References: <1529320591-22434-1-git-send-email-rohitkr@codeaurora.org> <20180619050527.GR25852@vkoul-mobl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180619050527.GR25852@vkoul-mobl> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vinod 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 Thanks Vinod for reviewing. On 6/19/2018 10:35 AM, Vinod wrote: > 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 ? No specific reason, I will move it to sdm845_snd_data. These locks are used to protect enable/disable of bit clocks. We have Primary MI2S RX/TX and Quaternary TDM RX/TX interfaces. For primary mi2s rx/tx, we have single clock which is synchronized with pri_mi2s_res_lock. For Quat TDM RX/TX, we are using quat_tdm_res_lock. We need two locks as we are protecting two different resources. > >> +static atomic_t pri_mi2s_clk_count; >> +static atomic_t quat_tdm_clk_count; > Any specific reason for using atomic variables? Nothing as such. As we are using mutex to synchronize, we can make it non- atomic. Will do it in next-spin. > >> +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 OK. Will check and remove. >> + 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 :) Sure. Will change it. >> +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 OK >> + 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. So, we can have two usecases: one with primary mi2s rx and other with primary mi2s tx. Lock is required to increment  pri_mi2s_clk_count and enable clock so that disable of one usecase does not disable the clock. > >> + snd_soc_dai_set_fmt(cpu_dai, fmt); >> + break; > empty line after break helps in readability Sure. Will add that change. >> +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.. Right. Its not mandatory to have qcom,audio-routing in device tree. Regards, Rohit -- Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc., is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.