On 7/31/23 15:48, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:59:32 +0200,
> Tony W Wang-oc wrote:
>> @@ -1044,6 +1044,16 @@ void azx_stop_chip(struct azx *chip)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(azx_stop_chip);
>>
>> +static void azx_rirb_zxdelay(struct azx *chip, int enable)
>
> It'd be helpful to have a brief function description. It doesn't do
> any delaying but flip something instead, right?
Yes, you are right.
This function expects to implement two functions: Adjust the priority of
write cycles for KX-5000 and delay some time. Now its only implement the
first function.
>
>> +{
>> + if (chip->remap_diu_addr) {
>> + if (!enable)
>> + writel(0x0, (char *)chip->remap_diu_addr + 0x490a8);
>> + else
>> + writel(0x1000000, (char *)chip->remap_diu_addr + 0x490a8);
>
> Avoid magic numbers, but define them.
>
Got it.
This solution operate the register inside the GPU witch do not belong to
HDAC. So will evaluate this patch method again.
>> @@ -1103,9 +1113,14 @@ irqreturn_t azx_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> azx_writeb(chip, RIRBSTS, RIRB_INT_MASK);
>> active = true;
>> if (status & RIRB_INT_RESPONSE) {
>> - if (chip->driver_caps & AZX_DCAPS_CTX_WORKAROUND)
>> + if ((chip->driver_caps & AZX_DCAPS_CTX_WORKAROUND) ||
>> + (chip->driver_caps & AZX_DCAPS_RIRB_PRE_DELAY)) {
>> + azx_rirb_zxdelay(chip, 1);
>> udelay(80);
>
> Calling it here looks a bit misleading, especially because it's paired
> with a later call. Better to put another if block that matches with
> both calls consistently.
>
Ok.
>> + }
>> snd_hdac_bus_update_rirb(bus);
>> + if (chip->driver_caps & AZX_DCAPS_RIRB_PRE_DELAY)
>> + azx_rirb_zxdelay(chip, 0);
>
> I meant this one.
>
>> @@ -145,6 +146,7 @@ struct azx {
>>
>> /* GTS present */
>> unsigned int gts_present:1;
>> + void __iomem *remap_diu_addr;
>
> This is a completely different thing, give some comment.
>
Its belong to GPU MMIO.
>
>> +static int azx_init_pci_zx(struct azx *chip)
>> +{
>> + struct snd_card *card = chip->card;
>> + unsigned int diu_reg;
>> + struct pci_dev *diu_pci = NULL;
>> +
>> + diu_pci = pci_get_device(PCI_VENDOR_ID_ZHAOXIN, 0x3a03, NULL);
>> + if (!diu_pci) {
>> + dev_err(card->dev, "hda no KX-5000 device.\n");
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>> + pci_read_config_dword(diu_pci, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, &diu_reg);
>> + chip->remap_diu_addr = ioremap(diu_reg, 0x50000);
>> + dev_info(card->dev, "hda %x %p\n", diu_reg, chip->remap_diu_addr);
>> + return 0;
>
> Missing pci_dev_put()?
>
Yes.
>> @@ -1360,6 +1385,10 @@ static void azx_free(struct azx *chip)
>> hda->init_failed = 1; /* to be sure */
>> complete_all(&hda->probe_wait);
>>
>> + if (chip->driver_type == AZX_DRIVER_ZHAOXINHDMI) {
>> + azx_free_pci_zx(chip);
>> + }
>
> Superfluous parentheses.
>
>> @@ -1876,6 +1906,10 @@ static int azx_first_init(struct azx *chip)
>> bus->access_sdnctl_in_dword = 1;
>> }
>>
>> + chip->remap_diu_addr = NULL;
>> + if (chip->driver_type == AZX_DRIVER_ZHAOXINHDMI)
>> + azx_init_pci_zx(chip);
>
> No error check? It doesn't look too serious even if the driver
> continues to load, though.
>
>> --- a/sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c
>> +++ b/sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c
>> @@ -4501,6 +4501,8 @@ static int patch_gf_hdmi(struct hda_codec *codec)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int patch_zx_hdmi(struct hda_codec *codec) { return patch_gf_hdmi(codec); }
>
> Don't put in a single line.
> Or, if it's the very same function, you can rather call patch_gf_hdmi
> directly in the table.
>
Ok.
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
