+static int platform_clock_control(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *w,
+ struct snd_kcontrol *k, int event)
+{
+ struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm = w->dapm;
+ struct snd_soc_card *card = dapm->card;
+ struct kbl_rt5663_private *priv = snd_soc_card_get_drvdata(card);
+
+ clk_disable_unprepare(priv->mclk);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(priv->sclk);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static const struct snd_soc_dapm_widget kabylake_widgets[] = {
SND_SOC_DAPM_HP("Headphone Jack", NULL),
SND_SOC_DAPM_MIC("Headset Mic", NULL),
@@ -77,7 +95,8 @@ enum {
SND_SOC_DAPM_SPK("HDMI1", NULL),
SND_SOC_DAPM_SPK("HDMI2", NULL),
SND_SOC_DAPM_SPK("HDMI3", NULL),
-
+ SND_SOC_DAPM_SUPPLY("Platform Clock", SND_SOC_NOPM, 0, 0,
+ platform_clock_control, SND_SOC_DAPM_POST_PMD),
[snip]
+static int kabylake_enable_ssp_clks(struct snd_soc_card *card)
+{
+
+ struct kbl_rt5663_private *priv = snd_soc_card_get_drvdata(card);
+ int ret;
+
+ /* Enable MCLK */
+ ret = clk_set_rate(priv->mclk, 24000000);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(card->dev, "Can't set rate for mclk, err: %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->mclk);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(card->dev, "Can't enable mclk, err: %d\n", ret);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ /* Enable SCLK */
+ ret = clk_set_rate(priv->sclk, 3072000);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(card->dev, "Can't set rate for sclk, err: %d\n", ret);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(priv->mclk);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(priv->sclk);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(card->dev, "Can't enable sclk, err: %d\n", ret);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(priv->mclk);
+ }
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
static int kabylake_rt5663_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params)
{
struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
struct snd_soc_dai *codec_dai = rtd->codec_dai;
+ struct snd_soc_card *card = rtd->card;
int ret;
+ if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_CAPTURE) {
+ ret = kabylake_enable_ssp_clks(card);
Is there a reason why the clocks need to be enabled in the hw_params()
instead of platform_clock_control()?
The code is not symmetrical between enable/disable, is this intended? I
remember seeing this in a different context (dialog codec?).
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel