Hi Fabio, On 06/02/2016 05:48 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Clemens, > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Clemens Gruber > <clemens.gruber@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if >> the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo >> if the regulator is missing. >> Otherwise, the user reads in the kernel log that the internal LDO is >> used, even though he did follow the NXP recommendation to use external >> VDDD and also specified VDDD-supply in the devicetree. >> >> Also remove the comment, which incorrectly states that external VDDD is >> only supported for SGTL5000 chip revisions < 0x11. >> Official NXP documentation recommends using external VDDD and not the >> internal LDO due to the SGTL5000 erratum ER1. This also applies to >> revisions >= 0x11. >> >> Tested on an i.MX6Q board with SGTL5000 rev 0x11 and external VDDD. > > Patch looks good to me. > > Eric, > > Sometime ago you were looking at this. What do you think about this patch? > Sorry. I'm traveling and haven't had a chance to review this, but it's on my to-do. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
