Re: [PATCH 4/5] ASoC: codecs: Add WCD939x Soundwire slave driver

[Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:49:14PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> Add Soundwire Slave driver for the WCD9390/WCD9395 Audio Codec.

> The WCD9390/WCD9395 Soundwire Slaves will be used by the

Please avoid using outdated terminology, "device" is probably a good
alternative here.  There are some usages in APIs that need to be updated
but still, good to avoid where possible.

> +static struct wcd939x_sdw_ch_info wcd939x_sdw_tx_ch_info[] = {
> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC1, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(0)),
> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC2, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(1)),
> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC3, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(2)),
> +	WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC4, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(3)),
> +	// TOFIX support ADC3/4 & DMIC0/1 on port 2
> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC3, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(0)),
> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC4, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(1)),
> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_DMIC0, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(2)),
> +	//WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_DMIC1, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(3)),

Why are these commented out?

> +static int wcd9390_interrupt_callback(struct sdw_slave *slave,
> +				      struct sdw_slave_intr_status *status)
> +{
> +	struct wcd939x_sdw_priv *wcd = dev_get_drvdata(&slave->dev);
> +	struct irq_domain *slave_irq = wcd->slave_irq;
> +	u32 sts1, sts2, sts3;
> +
> +	do {
> +		handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(slave_irq, 0));
> +		regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_0, &sts1);
> +		regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_1, &sts2);
> +		regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_2, &sts3);
> +
> +	} while (sts1 || sts2 || sts3);
> +
> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}

We do this in the other Qualcomm drivers but it doesn't seem ideal to
just ignore the interrupts.

> +static int wcd939x_sdw_component_bind(struct device *dev, struct device *master,
> +				      void *data)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void wcd939x_sdw_component_unbind(struct device *dev,
> +					 struct device *master, void *data)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static const struct component_ops wcd939x_sdw_component_ops = {
> +	.bind = wcd939x_sdw_component_bind,
> +	.unbind = wcd939x_sdw_component_unbind,
> +};

Do these need to be provided if they can legitimately be empty?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature