Hi,
Having two nits and one question, inline:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 05:47:02PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> @@ -182,6 +180,69 @@ static int fsl_asoc_card_hw_params(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> cpu_priv->slot_width);
> if (ret && ret != -ENOTSUPP) {
> dev_err(dev, "failed to set TDM slot for cpu dai\n");
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Specific configuration for PLL */
> + if (codec_priv->pll_id && codec_priv->fll_id) {
> + if (priv->sample_format == SNDRV_PCM_FORMAT_S24_LE)
> + pll_out = priv->sample_rate * 384;
> + else
> + pll_out = priv->sample_rate * 256;
> +
> + ret = snd_soc_dai_set_pll(asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, 0),
> + codec_priv->pll_id,
> + codec_priv->mclk_id,
> + codec_priv->mclk_freq, pll_out);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to start FLL: %d\n", ret);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, 0),
> + codec_priv->fll_id,
> + pll_out, SND_SOC_CLOCK_IN);
Just came into my mind: do we need some protection here to prevent
PLL/SYSCLK reconfiguration if TX/RX end up with different values?
> + return 0;
> +
> +out:
> + priv->streams &= ~BIT(substream->stream);
> + return ret;
Rather than "out:" which doesn't explicitly indicate an error-out,
"fail:" would be better, following what we used in probe().
> +static int fsl_asoc_card_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> +{
> + struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> + struct fsl_asoc_card_priv *priv = snd_soc_card_get_drvdata(rtd->card);
> + struct codec_priv *codec_priv = &priv->codec_priv;
> + struct device *dev = rtd->card->dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + priv->streams &= ~BIT(substream->stream);
> +
> + if (!priv->streams && codec_priv->pll_id &&
> + codec_priv->fll_id) {
This now can fit into single line :)
