On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:28:32PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 1:02 PM Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:29:16AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > On VF610, mclk0 = bus_clk;
> > > On i.MX6SX/6UL/6ULL/7D, mclk0 = mclk1;
> > > On i.MX7ULP, mclk0 = bus_clk;
> > > On i.MX8QM/8QXP, mclk0 = bus_clk;
> > > On i.MX8MQ/8MN/8MM/8MP, mclk0 = bus_clk;
> > >
> > > So add variable mclk0_mclk1_match in fsl_sai_soc_data To
> >
> > Not in favor of "mclk0_mclk1_match" as it doesn't sound explicit
> > to me. Instead, "mclk0_is_bus_clk" or "mclk0_is_mclk1" might be
> > better. Or in case that you foresee some other implementation:
> >
> > enum {
> > MCLK0_IS_BUS_CLK,
> > MCLK0_IS_MCLK1,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct fsl_sai_soc_data fsl_sai_vf610_data = {
> > + .mclk0_alias = MCLK0_IS_BUS_CLK,
> > };
>
> No problem.
>
> But I just find this patch doesn't consider the mqs case.
> MCLK0 can't be used for mqs, it needs MCLK1, even
> the MCLK0 is same as MCLK1, MCLK1 need to be
> selected for mqs case.
>
> Is there a decent way for this case?
Is there any use case that we have to use MCLK0 instead of MCLK1
on SoCs where MCLK0=MCLK1? If no, how about skip MCLK0 at all in
the for-loop at fsl_sai_set_bclk?
/*
* There is no point in polling MCLK0 if it is identical to MCLK1.
* And given that MQS use case has to use MCLK1 though two clocks
* are the same, we simply skip MCLK0 and start to find from MCLK1.
*/
id = mclk0_is_mclk1 ? 1 : 0;
for (; id < FSL_SAI_MCLK_MAX; id++) {
