On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:04:23PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > clock generation. The TCSR.TE is no need to enabled when only RX
> > > is enabled.
> >
> > You are correct if there's only RX running without TX joining.
> > However, that's something we can't guarantee. Then we'd enable
> > TE after RE is enabled, which is against what RM recommends:
> >
> > # From 54.3.3.1 Synchronous mode in IMX6SXRM
> > # If the receiver bit clock and frame sync are to be used by
> > # both the transmitter and receiver, it is recommended that
> > # the receiver is the last enabled and the first disabled.
> >
> > I remember I did this "ugly" design by strictly following what
> > RM says. If hardware team has updated the RM or removed this
> > limitation, please quote in the commit logs.
>
> There is no change in RM and same recommandation.
>
> My change does not violate the RM. The direction which generates
> the clock is still last enabled.
Using Tx syncing with Rx clock for example,
T1: arecord (non-stop) => set RE
T2: aplay => set TE then RE (but RE is already set at T1)
Anything that I am missing?
> > > + if (!sai->synchronous[TX] && sai->synchronous[RX] && !tx) {
> > > + regmap_update_bits(sai->regmap, FSL_SAI_xCSR((!tx), ofs),
> > > + FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE, FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE);
> > > + } else if (!sai->synchronous[RX] && sai->synchronous[TX] && tx) {
> > > + regmap_update_bits(sai->regmap, FSL_SAI_xCSR((!tx), ofs),
> > > + FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE, FSL_SAI_CSR_TERE);
> >
> > Two identical regmap_update_bits calls -- both on !tx (RX?)
> The content for regmap_update_bits is the same, but the precondition
> is different.
> The first one is for tx=false and enable TCSR.TE. (TX generate clock)
> The second one is for tx=true and enable RSCR.RE (RX generate clock)
Why not merge them?
+ if ((!sai->synchronous[TX] && sai->synchronous[RX] && !tx) ||
+ ((!sai->synchronous[RX] && sai->synchronous[TX] && tx) {
