On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:56:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:41:55AM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * Just read a register a few times to ensure the internal
> > + * oscillator sends out a few clocks.
> > + */
> > + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> > + ret = regmap_read(madera->regmap, MADERA_SOFTWARE_RESET, &val);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_err(madera->dev,
> > + "%s Failed to read register: %d (%d)\n",
> > + __func__, ret, i);
>
> Why use %s to format the __func__ rather than just concatenate?
>
Really the error message is quite out of character in general,
we don't normally print the func and it doesn't really say what
failed. I will refactor it.
> > + }
> > +
> > + udelay(300);
>
> So we read the register a few times then add a few hundred us of delay
> after? Surely that delay is going to be negligable compared to the time
> spent on I/O?
>
This is one of those technically situations. We have to do
the reads and we have to have at least 300uS after those.
Normally there will be enough slack in the system but better to
guarantee it. Maybe a comment?
> > +int madera_sysclk_ev(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *w,
> > + struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol, int event)
> > +{
> > + struct snd_soc_component *component = snd_soc_dapm_to_component(w->dapm);
> > + struct madera_priv *priv = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> > +
> > + madera_spin_sysclk(priv);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(madera_sysclk_ev);
>
> This will delay both before and after every power up and power down.
> Are you sure that makes sense?
>
Regrettably yes, or well at least I am sure that despite a lot of
complaining this is what the hardware guys insisted needed done.
> > +
> > + ret = madera_check_speaker_overheat(madera, &warn, &shutdown);
> > + if (ret)
> > + shutdown = true; /* for safety attempt to shutdown on error */
> > +
> > + if (shutdown) {
> > + dev_crit(madera->dev, "Thermal shutdown\n");
> > + ret = regmap_update_bits(madera->regmap,
> > + MADERA_OUTPUT_ENABLES_1,
> > + MADERA_OUT4L_ENA |
> > + MADERA_OUT4R_ENA, 0);
> > + if (ret != 0)
> > + dev_crit(madera->dev,
> > + "Failed to disable speaker outputs: %d\n",
> > + ret);
> > + } else if (warn) {
> > + dev_crit(madera->dev, "Thermal warning\n");
> > + }
> > +
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> We will flag the interrupt as handled if there was neither a warning nor
> a critical overheat? I'd expect some warning about a spurious interrupt
> at least.
>
Yeah I will update that one.
> > +static int madera_get_variable_u32_array(struct madera_priv *priv,
> > + const char *propname,
> > + u32 *dest,
> > + int n_max,
> > + int multiple)
> > +{
> > + struct madera *madera = priv->madera;
> > + int n, ret;
> > +
> > + n = device_property_read_u32_array(madera->dev, propname, NULL, 0);
> > + if (n == -EINVAL) {
> > + return 0; /* missing, ignore */
> > + } else if (n < 0) {
> > + dev_warn(madera->dev, "%s malformed (%d)\n",
> > + propname, n);
> > + return n;
> > + } else if ((n % multiple) != 0) {
> > + dev_warn(madera->dev, "%s not a multiple of %d entries\n",
> > + propname, multiple);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (n > n_max)
> > + n = n_max;
> > +
> > + ret = device_property_read_u32_array(madera->dev, propname, dest, n);
> > +
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + else
> > + return n;
> > +}
>
> This feels like it should perhaps be a generic OF helper function -
> there's nothing driver specific I'm seeing here and arrays that need to
> be a multiple of N entries aren't that uncommon I think.
>
I will have a look and see if we might do a generic helper
function for this one.
> > + mutex_lock(&priv->rate_lock);
> > + cached_rate = priv->adsp_rate_cache[adsp_num];
> > + mutex_unlock(&priv->rate_lock);
>
> What's this lock protecting? The value can we read can change as soon
> as the lock is released and we're just reading a single word here rather
> than traversing a data structure that might change under us or
> something.
>
Overall the lock protects anything that changes a rate on the
chip, since we have to do that weird spin_sysclk thing
before/after anything that does that.
It might normally be safe without the lock here I guess, since
you are only really protecting against the reads of adsp_rate_cache.
But suppose that might depend on the architecture if the read/writes
arn't effectively atomic (although that is probably unlikely on most
modern architectures).
> > +void madera_destroy_bus_error_irq(struct madera_priv *priv, int dsp_num)
> > +{
> > + struct madera *madera = priv->madera;
> > +
> > + madera_free_irq(madera,
> > + madera_dsp_bus_error_irqs[dsp_num],
> > + &priv->adsp[dsp_num]);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(madera_destroy_bus_error_irq);
>
> We use free rather than destroy normally?
>
Yup will fix that.
> > +static const char * const madera_dfc_width_text[MADERA_DFC_WIDTH_ENUM_SIZE] = {
> > + "8bit", "16bit", "20bit", "24bit", "32bit",
> > +};
>
> Spaces might make these more readable.
>
No problem to fix that too.
> > +static void madera_sleep(unsigned int delay)
> > +{
> > + if (delay < 20) {
> > + delay *= 1000;
> > + usleep_range(delay, delay + 500);
> > + } else {
> > + msleep(delay);
> > + }
> > +}
>
> This feels like it might make sense as a helper function as well - I
> could've sworn there was one already but I can't immediately find it.
I do vaguely remember some discussion that it was preferred
that people had to think about which delay function to call,
rather than having a generic helper. TBF I could probably
just switch it all to use msleep, for the most part this is
a quite small optimisation of path bring up (although it was
asked for by one of our customers).
Thanks,
Charles
