From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB34CECAAA1 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:01:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230116AbiILMBB (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 08:01:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54802 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230001AbiILMAm (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2022 08:00:42 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03DCE30547 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2022 05:00:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1662984034; x=1694520034; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cOz4LC+vVivuX8Ts3PVkxuMj1HkgIMBETXMOxkFJ1pg=; b=kyg2n/PEDv1rAJqWlrWJXG3a0m9JbPEmYN+yk4F/fWYmhuGXTnXxmvKR VUGOiJmpilCNxfJKDeJP+VGhHWh+Sf/jyMWtE4A0KjVQf4sTWSheXSbIz iKpmpVsJ5kX6kQzS/GRTDhp0sGg+aE+Rra1GSEqaezSGZEbU7T0p1TLrs cb9joMwD9FZXRl/Juxlb8B3wQv+nByyyBhA6Axnxazw4CV8lx+3YEiBLU lc1ZuAiFfUqBDxk36xgN6lSAOBuko7CeoDlm0kWrwru68Wv5g41y5NmK+ vaGrKuFh0i8rkiEXdn4+zOH2HslUGB8vOhWNuUNtk+WNIT1ut1Ef6PE/D Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10467"; a="299186203" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,310,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="299186203" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2022 05:00:31 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,310,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="705126666" Received: from vtsymbal-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.32.67]) ([10.252.32.67]) by fmsmga003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2022 05:00:26 -0700 Message-ID: <00ffdd42-2cb6-112e-3bb5-b9ef1105fc4f@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 13:49:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: Intel: sof_rt5682: Add support for jsl_rt5682_rt1019 Content-Language: en-US To: "Lu, Brent" , Sean Hong , "perex@perex.cz" , "tiwai@suse.com" Cc: "Rojewski, Cezary" , "kai.vehmanen@linux.intel.com" , "yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com" , "ranjani.sridharan@linux.intel.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com" , "broonie@kernel.org" , "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" , "peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com" References: <20220816075424.1245593-1-sean.hong@quanta.corp-partner.google.com> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/5/22 10:07, Lu, Brent wrote: > >> On 8/16/22 09:54, Sean Hong wrote: >>> This patch adds the driver data for rt5682 support jsl_rt5682_rt1019. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sean Hong >>> --- >>> sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_rt5682.c | 9 +++++++++ >>> sound/soc/intel/common/soc-acpi-intel-jsl-match.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_rt5682.c >>> b/sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_rt5682.c >>> index 045965312..3a840f3a9 100644 >>> --- a/sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_rt5682.c >>> +++ b/sound/soc/intel/boards/sof_rt5682.c >>> @@ -1100,6 +1100,15 @@ static const struct platform_device_id >> board_ids[] = { >>> SOF_RT5682_SSP_AMP(1) | >>> SOF_RT5682_NUM_HDMIDEV(4)), >>> }, >>> + { >>> + .name = "jsl_rt5682_rt1019", >>> + .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)(SOF_RT5682_MCLK_EN | >>> + SOF_RT5682_MCLK_24MHZ | >> >> I see it's the same setting for all JSL devices but I am having doubts on this >> MCLK. Is this 24MHz value correct for JSL? It's derived from ICL so in theory >> the MCLK should be a multiple of 19.2MHz if the root frequency was the >> oscillator. >> >> Is this intentional? >> > > I've checked some internal wiki page and sof git log. It seems the first amp enabled > on JSL is max98373 running in TDM 4 slot 100fs so 24MHz MCLK seems to be a > reasonable choice. The commis is 5340225a7 ("topology: Add JSL da7219+max98373 support") > > +# SSP 1 (ID: 0) > +DAI_CONFIG(SSP, SPK_INDEX, 0, SPK_NAME, > + SSP_CONFIG(DSP_B, SSP_CLOCK(mclk, 24000000, codec_mclk_in), > + SSP_CLOCK(bclk, 4800000, codec_slave), > + SSP_CLOCK(fsync, 48000, codec_slave), > + SSP_TDM(4, 25, 3, 240), > + SSP_CONFIG_DATA(SSP, SPK_INDEX, 16))) > > I've also tested 19.2MHz on JSL boards and it also works. 1K sinetone playback sounds ok. > Since JSL boards are using 2.304 MHz bclk for max98360a and 3.072 MHz bclk for alc1015 now, > changing to 19.2 MHz mclk seems no benefit. Functionally there should be no difference, but the 24 MHz MCLK can only be created on JSL from the 96 MHz HDaudio PLL while the 19.2 MHz can be divided from the oscillator. I guess it's too late to optimize now that the topology files are in use so here is my Ack: Acked-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart but that's a clear miss in the topology reviews.