On Monday 16 March 2009, Naresh Medisetty wrote: > @@ -43,14 +48,14 @@ static int evm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, > unsigned sysclk; > > /* ASP1 on DM355 EVM is clocked by an external oscillator */ ... and on this DM646x EVM ... ? > - if (machine_is_davinci_dm355_evm()) > + if (cpu_is_davinci_dm355() || cpu_is_davinci_dm646x()) Shouldn't that stay as a machine_is_*() test, just adding a machine_is_davinci_dm646x_evm() case? Code tends to get modified by clone-and-modify, and making this code be cpu-specific instead of board-specific will thus promote errors. On top of that, there's currently an effort to minimize the amount of cpu_is_*() testing found in drivers. Patches that increase such testing, especially needlessly increasing it!, seem to be the wrong direction... > sysclk = 27000000; > > /* ASP0 in DM6446 EVM is clocked by U55, as configured by > * board-dm644x-evm.c using GPIOs from U18. There are six > * options; here we "know" we use a 48 KHz sample rate. > */ > - else if (machine_is_davinci_evm()) > + else if (cpu_is_davinci_dm644x()) > sysclk = 12288000; > > else _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
