On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:37:56PM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > I'd really like to see an analysis explaining why this can never happen, > > the driver explicitly supports running without extclk being provided. > > Simply asserting that we should never get such a rate isn't really > > enough detail... > Russell explained this in the message below dated Wed, 27 Mar 2013 > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg233819.html) This is no good, the information needs to be in the commit message. Right now the change just looks like a bug supported by wishful thinking, you're not providing enough analysis and inspection of the code suggests a bug. > Sebastian is correct in that such a path should _never_ be reached > because ALSA will reject anything but 44.1, 48 or 96kHz rates if we > don't have an extclk. There's no obvious code that handles anything differently with extclk. Indeed if you think about it for a minute you'll realise there's no way the driver will ever use an extclk - set_rate() is badly implemented, look at how other drivers select between clocks. Fixing the driver so it can make use of an extclk would be more useful...
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
