On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 12:50:45AM +0300, Marian Postevca wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > machine with this MCLK rather than that's based on the spec. I would
> > instead suggest applying the MCLK divider in any case where we can do so
> > and still generate suitable clocking for the rest of the system, or at
> > least hit 256fs (the datasheet quotes 256/384fs on the front page which
> > suggests it's targetting 256fs, that'd be a fairly normal number, and
> > there's mention of 12/24MHz USB clocks being directly usable). Doing
> > this should either make no odds or result in better performance.
> Not 100% sure what checks should be done for a MCLK to determine if it
> generates suitable clocking. Would something along this patch make
> sense?
In general a MCLK that allows you to configure the dividers in the CODEC
appropriately for use. So long as it works your change looks fine I
think modulo.
> + do {
> + /* Validate supported sample rates that are autodetected from MCLK */
> + for (i = 0; i < NR_SUPPORTED_MCLK_LRCK_RATIOS; i++) {
> + const unsigned int ratio = supported_mclk_lrck_ratios[i];
> +
> + if (clk % ratio != 0)
> + continue;
> + if (clk / ratio == params_rate(params))
> + break;
> + }
Use ARRAY_SIZE()
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
