On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 10:35 PM Agrawal, Akshu <Akshu.Agrawal@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 5/3/2018 10:10 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:33 AM Mukunda,Vijendar <
vijendar.mukunda@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thursday 03 May 2018 11:13 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> >>> Some checkpatch nits below...
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:53 PM Vijendar Mukunda <
> > Vijendar.Mukunda@xxxxxxx>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> With in ACP, There are three I2S controllers can be
> >>>> configured/enabled ( I2S SP, I2S MICSP, I2S BT).
> >>>> Default enabled I2S controller instance is I2S SP.
> >>>> This patch provides required changes to support I2S BT
> >>>> controller Instance.
> >>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vijendar Mukunda <Vijendar.Mukunda@xxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> v1->v2: defined i2s instance macros in acp header file
> >>>> v2->v3: sqaushed previous patch series and spilt changes
> >>>> into multiple patches (acp dma driver code cleanup
> >>>> patches and bt i2s instance specific changes)
> >>>> sound/soc/amd/acp-da7219-max98357a.c | 23 ++++
> >>>> sound/soc/amd/acp-pcm-dma.c | 256
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>>> sound/soc/amd/acp.h | 40 ++++++
> >>>> 3 files changed, 262 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/amd/acp-da7219-max98357a.c
> >>> b/sound/soc/amd/acp-da7219-max98357a.c
> >>>> index 133139d..b3184ab 100644
> >>>> --- a/sound/soc/amd/acp-da7219-max98357a.c
> >>>> +++ b/sound/soc/amd/acp-da7219-max98357a.c
> >>>> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
> >>>> #include <linux/input.h>
> >>>> #include <linux/acpi.h>
> >>>
> >>>> +#include "acp.h"
> >>>> #include "../codecs/da7219.h"
> >>>> #include "../codecs/da7219-aad.h"
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@
> >>>
> >>>> static struct snd_soc_jack cz_jack;
> >>>> static struct clk *da7219_dai_clk;
> >>>> +extern int bt_pad_enable;
> >>>
> >>> WARNING: externs should be avoided in .c files
> >
> >> We don't have .h file for machine driver and It can be ignored for
> >> one variable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> static int cz_da7219_init(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd)
> >>>> {
> >>>> @@ -132,6 +134,9 @@ static const struct snd_pcm_hw_constraint_list
> >>> constraints_channels = {
> >>>> static int cz_da7219_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream
*substream)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct snd_pcm_runtime *runtime = substream->runtime;
> >>>> + struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> >>>> + struct snd_soc_card *card = rtd->card;
> >>>> + struct acp_platform_info *machine =
> >>> snd_soc_card_get_drvdata(card);
> >>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> * On this platform for PCM device we support stereo
> >>>> @@ -143,6 +148,7 @@ static int cz_da7219_startup(struct
> > snd_pcm_substream
> >>> *substream)
> >>>> snd_pcm_hw_constraint_list(runtime, 0,
> > SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> >>>> &constraints_rates);
> >>>
> >>>> + machine->i2s_instance = I2S_BT_INSTANCE;
> >>>
> >>> I'm not a big fan of this approach, but I don't know any other way to
> > tell
> >>> a single "platform" driver (acp-pcm-dma) which of two channels (ST/BT)
> > to
> >>> use via the pcm_open() callback.
> >>>
> >>> Mark, can you recommend any other way of doing this?
> >
> >> Hi Dan,
> >
> >> There have been couple of approaches worked upon this earlier.
> >> 1) To compare cpu dai name to get the I2S instance value in
> >> acp_dma_open() call.
> >
> >> But, Mark suggested not to implement this approach as we are comparing
> >> dynamically generated cpu dai names.
> >
> >> 2) We added i2s_instance parameter as platform data to dwc driver.
> >> By querying dwc driver platform data in acp dma driver, current i2s
> >> instance was programmed in acp_dma_open ().
> >
> >> But Mark's latest comment was to implement platform specific changes in
> >> machine driver. Machine driver and Dma driver should exchange the data
> >> regarding this. We accepted this and current approach is based on the
> >> same comment.
> >> Below is the reference.
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/18/597
> >
> > Yes, I saw Mark's previous comment, but what we are trying to implement
> > here is the SoC specific binding between i2s channel and acp-dma
channel.
> > This is a feature of the SoC, not of the i2s controller, but also not a
> > feature of the audio configuration on the board.
> The binding of channel and dma is soc specific but codec to channel is
> board specific.
> These linkages can change from one board to another. Machine driver is
> specific to a board (grunt here) and dma driver being common for various
> boards (but specific to a platform like ST/CZ here). Tomorrow there can
> be some other board with x codec linked to BT and y to SP.
> Hence, machine driver should send this board specific link information
> to dma driver for it to dma on the correct channel as per the board.
> For these SoCs, the link
> > between DMA registers & I2S-channel is hard-coded. The machine driver
is
> > already specifying which i2s channel to use when it configures, for
> > example, '.cpu_dai_name = "designware-i2s.2.auto"'. The i2s channel
> > selection already implies a particular DMA configuration. It seems
> > redundant to create this separate out-of-band infrastructure to make the
> > machine driver also tell its platform driver '.platform_name =
> > "acp_audio_dma.0.auto"' which i2s channel it is using.
> >
> We could have decided on the basis of "cpu_dai_name" but the decision
> would have been based on dynamically generated name. Though maybe
> redundant in nature, but machine driver is just sending info to dma
> driver that this codec is playing so play on this instance.
> > Perhaps the acp-pcm-dma.c should register two different platform
drivers,
> > and let the machine driver pick the appropriate one (ie,
> > acp_audio_dma.0.auto or acp_audio_dma.1.auto) depending on which i2s
port
> > it needs? Then each of these would have its own
> > snd_soc_platform_driver->ops->open() that could setup
> > snd_pcm_runtime->private_data appropriately?
> I guess it would be overkill to have 2 platform drivers one for each
> instance but actually for a single platform.
> Or is there another standard
> > way to have a single snd_soc_platform_driver handle multiple channels?
> >
> Don't know if there is a standard but would be interesting to know how
> other platforms handle multiple instances.
Hmm, there may be another way that we don't see yet, but in any case, I see
no harm in merging this patch set as is.
So, for the series, feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Thanks,
> Akshu
> > -Dan
> >
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
