On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:25:40PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Charles Keepax > <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:05:15PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Charles Keepax > >> <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:09:36PM +0200, Daniel Baluta wrote: > >> >> * use a marker to check if a match is found > >> >> * didn't removed PLL as Charles suggested because there is > >> >> a special PLL mode which explictly uses PLL. We could start > >> >> a discussion on not using PLL when deriving bitclk, but this > >> >> is to be done in another patch. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Could you elaborate on this a little more am I not sure I follow > >> > 100%? There is a mode which explictly requires the PLL to be used > >> > (WM8960_SYSCLK_PLL) but in that case your wm8960_configure_sysclk > >> > code will not be called so I don't see what is causing that to have > >> > an effect on this patch? > >> > >> My doubt is, what happens if wm8960_configure_clocking is called with > >> wm8960->clk_id = WM8960_SYSCLK_PLL and we remove the PLL > >> as suggested. > > > > I wasn't suggesting removing the PLL just that if we find a > > "relaxed match" we don't need to then check the PLL for a better > > match, as I suspect that a slightly higher than needed bit clock > > has less power/performance impact than firing up the PLL. > > > > Which removes the need to differenciate between a relaxed and > > bang on match in wm8960_configure_sysclk and means you don't have > > to do the caching the values across the PLL code that you do now. > > Oh, I see. So we still use the PLL when no exact or relaxed match > is found. Yeah exactly or in the case that it is requested directly. Thanks, Charles _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
