On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 12:18:43PM +0800, Shenghao Ding wrote:
> -static int tas2781_force_fwload_get(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> +static int tasdev_force_fwload_get(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)
> {
> struct snd_soc_component *component =
> @@ -118,7 +119,7 @@ static int tas2781_force_fwload_get(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int tas2781_force_fwload_put(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> +static int tasdev_force_fwload_put(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)
Are these fwload changes really related to the rest of the change? They
feel like they should be a separate patch, even if it's a peparatory one
for this.
> +static int tas2563_digital_gain_put(
> + struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)
> +{
> + for (i = 0; i < tas_dev->ndev; i++) {
> + ret = tasdevice_dev_bulk_write(tas_dev, i, reg,
> + (unsigned char *)tas2563_dvc_table[vol], 4);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_err(tas_dev->dev,
> + "%s, set digital vol error in device %d\n",
> + __func__, i);
> + }
> +
> +out:
> + mutex_unlock(&tas_dev->codec_lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
This needs to return 1 if the value is being changed, the mixer-test
selftest will tell you about this and other issues.
> +static const struct snd_kcontrol_new tas2563_snd_controls[] = {
> + SOC_SINGLE_RANGE_EXT_TLV("Speaker Digital Gain", TAS2563_DVC_LVL, 0,
> + 0, ARRAY_SIZE(tas2563_dvc_table) - 1, 0,
> + tas2563_digital_gain_get, tas2563_digital_gain_put,
> + tas2563_dvc_tlv),
> };
Volume controls should end in Volume, again mixer-test will tell you
this - please run mixer-test.
> static int tasdevice_codec_probe(struct snd_soc_component *codec)
> {
> struct tasdevice_priv *tas_priv = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(codec);
> + int rc;
> +
> + if (tas_priv->chip_id == TAS2781) {
> + } else {
If you write this as a switch statement it'll be more extensible.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
