On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM, MarkBrown<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:35:08AM +0900, jassi brar wrote:>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Mark>> Brown<broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>>> >> Codec recommends - BCLK={32, 48} RFS={384}>>> > I'm not sure where these CODEC recommendations come from?>>> Well, my example was inspired from one recommendation/constraint i>> found at Page-23, of WM8580A manual Rev-4.7 March-2009.>> It indicates that we can't have BCLK as 16fs if RFS(MCLK/LRCLK) is>> either 128fs or 192fs.>> That's not a recommendation, that's a hardware limit.Another way of putting it.When we can't do somthing, it is recommended otherwise :)
> Though I still> don't see how we get to a 48fs BCLK (which could only be generated with> a 48fs system clock) or a recommendation for a 384fs MCLK in particular.> This is all a bit of a sidetrack anyway.Yes, a badly put example.
>> Just as WM8580 has a constraint on BCLK(128fs) at MCLK=128,192fs, some>> SoC may have a constraint of using BCLK=48fs for MCLK=384fs>> @16-bits/sample.> Like I say, I'd be very surprised to see any such constraintThis was just an example.I once had to set non-obvious values of BCLK+MCLK on the codec due to the clockI had that ran the SoC in Master mode. Will let you know the real lifeexample if i cud dig that up again.
I think i have made whatever points i had. Am at peace now :)Do as u wish appropriate with the patch.
Regards._______________________________________________Alsa-devel mailing listAlsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
