On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 09:43:20PM +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > You probably mean the BITCLK clock. > What is a bit pesky about this clock is that it can either be mastered by > digital controller and the codec is a slave, or the other way around. That's a bit surprising - I've never encountered a system that impelemnts this, it may be permitted by the spec but it's always the CODEC. The master clock from the CODEC is often provided by the SoC but I've not seen systems where anything other than the CODEC drives the actual AC'97 bus. > >> +int ac97_digital_controller_register(const struct ac97_controller_ops *ops, > >> + struct device *dev); > >> +int ac97_digital_controller_unregister(const struct device *dev); > > Why "digital"? > I copy-pasted this from Audio Codec '97 Revision 2.3, where in several places > they call the controller a "digital controller". It's not really adding anything though, it's just clumsy wording on their part - it's not like we need to distinguish this from analogue or any other type of AC'97 controllers. > Now if you prefer "ac97_controller" or something like that, that's as you wish, > the name does not matter that much to me ;) Yes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
