> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] ASoC: simple-card: add asoc_simple_card_fmt_master() > to simplify the code. > > On 09/03/2014 05:37 AM, Li.Xiubo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] ASoC: simple-card: add > asoc_simple_card_fmt_master() > ... > >> > >> This won't work. The logic for cpu node needs to be negated for codec node. > >> > > > > Yes, actually it should be. > > > > As my previous patches about this: > > ---- > > Since from the DAI format micro SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBx_CFx, the 'CBx' > > mean Codec's bit clock is as master/slave and the 'CFx' mean Codec's > > frame clock is as master/slave. > > > > So these same DAI formats should be informed to CPU and CODE DAIs at > > the same time. For the Codec driver will set the bit clock and frame > > clock as the DAI formats said, but for the CPU driver, if the the > > bit clock or frame clock is as Codec master, so it should be set CPU > > DAI device as bit clock or frame clock as slave, and vice versa. > > > > The old code will cause confusion, and we should be clear that the > > letter 'C' here mean to Codec. > > ---- > > > > For the master format, no matter for CPU or CODEC, it always means Codec > > is master or slave for bit/frame clock, not means the local DAI device's > > bit/frame clock as master or slave. > > > > So your CPU DAI device driver should negate this locally as the existed > > Ones do. > > > > > Yes, but there is double negation in this patch. The switch-case > assignments depend on whether the bitclkmaster and framemaster > DT-node pointers are compared to a cpu-dai-node or > codec-dai-node. When your patch compares the codec-node, it does > the decisions like it was a cpu-node, which produces inverted CBM > and CFM setting. > > However, Kurinori-san's patch fixes this problem because it just > uses the daifmt generated by comparing to codec node for both cpu > and codec nodes. > > The reason why I did the comparison per node basis, was to make > the code more ready for tdm setups with multiple codecs on a same > wire. But writing code for something that is not really needed > yet is usually a bad idea, like it was this time too. > > Kurinori-san's version of the fix should be fine and it cleans up > the code quite nicely. > Yes, agree. So I just removed this patch from my patch series list. Kuninori-san will post his local patch about this later. Thanks, BRs Xiubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
