On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:31:08PM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote: > +static int tas2552_class_d_en(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *w, > + struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol, int event) > +{ > + switch (event) { > + case SND_SOC_DAPM_PRE_PMU: > + snd_soc_update_bits(w->codec, TAS2552_CFG_2, > + TAS2552_CLASSD_EN_MASK, TAS2552_CLASSD_EN_MASK); > + break; > + case SND_SOC_DAPM_POST_PMD: > + snd_soc_update_bits(w->codec, TAS2552_CFG_2, > + TAS2552_CLASSD_EN_MASK, 0); > + break; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static const struct snd_soc_dapm_widget tas2552_dapm_widgets[] = > +{ > +SND_SOC_DAPM_PRE("Class D Enable", tas2552_class_d_en), > +SND_SOC_DAPM_POST("Class D Disable", tas2552_class_d_en), > +SND_SOC_DAPM_POST("PLL Disable", tas2552_pll_disable), > +}; This seems broken, having to use _PRE or _POST widgets for simple register writes (or almost anything really) should never be required and error prone - what is this actually trying to do? I'd expect the class D to be a PGA or OUTPUT widget and the PLL to be a SUPPLY widget.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: tas2552: Add DAPM calls for amp and PLL
- From: Murphy, Dan
- Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: tas2552: Add DAPM calls for amp and PLL
- References:
- [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: tas2552: Fix PM sequencing
- From: Dan Murphy
- [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: tas2552: Add DAPM calls for amp and PLL
- From: Dan Murphy
- [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: tas2552: Fix PM sequencing
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: tas2552: Fix PM sequencing
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: tas2552: Fix PM sequencing
- Previous by thread: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: tas2552: Add DAPM calls for amp and PLL
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: tas2552: Add DAPM calls for amp and PLL
- Index(es):