On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 10:47:42AM -0500, Adam Serbinski wrote:
>
> +#define AFE_API_VERSION_PCM_CONFIG 0x1
> +/* Enumeration for the auxiliary PCM synchronization signal
> + * provided by an external source.
> + */
> +
> +#define AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_EXTERNAL 0x0
> +/* Enumeration for the auxiliary PCM synchronization signal
> + * provided by an internal source.
> + */
This is a *weird* commenting style for these #defines and it's not
consistent within the block, I'm seeing at least 3 different styles.
> +/* Payload of the #AFE_PARAM_ID_PCM_CONFIG command's
> + * (PCM configuration parameter).
> + */
> +
> +struct afe_param_id_pcm_cfg {
Similar weird commenting here, please follow coding-style.rst.
> + switch (cfg->fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS:
> + pcfg->pcm_cfg.sync_src = AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_INTERNAL;
> + break;
> + case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> + /* CPU is slave */
> + pcfg->pcm_cfg.sync_src = AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_EXTERNAL;
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
Why is this not returning an error on unsupported values?
> +
> + switch (cfg->sample_rate) {
> + case 8000:
> + pcfg->pcm_cfg.frame_setting = AFE_PORT_PCM_BITS_PER_FRAME_128;
> + break;
> + case 16000:
> + pcfg->pcm_cfg.frame_setting = AFE_PORT_PCM_BITS_PER_FRAME_64;
> + break;
> + }
Same here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
