Il 03/03/22 15:10, Jiaxin Yu ha scritto:
On Fri, 2022-02-18 at 15:54 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 17/02/22 14:41, Jiaxin Yu ha scritto:
This patch adds mt8186 tdm dai driver.
Signed-off-by: Jiaxin Yu <jiaxin.yu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c | 713
+++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 713 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c
diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c
b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..28dd3661f0e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8186/mt8186-dai-tdm.c
@@ -0,0 +1,713 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+//
+// MediaTek ALSA SoC Audio DAI TDM Control
+//
+// Copyright (c) 2022 MediaTek Inc.
+// Author: Jiaxin Yu <jiaxin.yu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
+
..snip..
+
+static int mtk_dai_tdm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream
*substream,
+ struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params,
+ struct snd_soc_dai *dai)
+{
+ struct mtk_base_afe *afe = snd_soc_dai_get_drvdata(dai);
+ struct mt8186_afe_private *afe_priv = afe->platform_priv;
+ int tdm_id = dai->id;
+ struct mtk_afe_tdm_priv *tdm_priv = afe_priv->dai_priv[tdm_id];
+ unsigned int tdm_mode = tdm_priv->tdm_mode;
+ unsigned int data_mode = tdm_priv->data_mode;
+ unsigned int rate = params_rate(params);
+ unsigned int channels = params_channels(params);
+ snd_pcm_format_t format = params_format(params);
+ unsigned int bit_width =
+ snd_pcm_format_physical_width(format);
+ unsigned int tdm_channels = (data_mode == TDM_DATA_ONE_PIN) ?
+ get_tdm_ch_per_sdata(tdm_mode, channels) : 2;
+ unsigned int lrck_width =
+ get_tdm_lrck_width(format, tdm_mode);
+ unsigned int tdm_con = 0;
+ bool slave_mode = tdm_priv->slave_mode;
+ bool lrck_inv = tdm_priv->lck_invert;
+ bool bck_inv = tdm_priv->bck_invert;
+ unsigned int ctrl_reg;
+ unsigned int ctrl_mask;
+ unsigned int tran_rate;
+ unsigned int tran_relatch_rate;
+
+ if (tdm_priv)
+ tdm_priv->rate = rate;
+ else
+ dev_info(afe->dev, "%s(), tdm_priv == NULL", __func__);
+
+ tran_rate = mt8186_rate_transform(afe->dev, rate, dai->id);
+ tran_relatch_rate = mt8186_tdm_relatch_rate_transform(afe->dev,
rate);
+
+ /* calculate mclk_rate, if not set explicitly */
+ if (!tdm_priv->mclk_rate) {
+ tdm_priv->mclk_rate = rate * tdm_priv->mclk_multiple;
+ mtk_dai_tdm_cal_mclk(afe,
+ tdm_priv,
+ tdm_priv->mclk_rate);
+ }
+
+ /* ETDM_IN1_CON0 */
+ tdm_con |= slave_mode << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_SLAVE_MODE_SFT;
+ tdm_con |= tdm_mode << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_FMT_SFT;
+ tdm_con |= (bit_width - 1) << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_BIT_LENGTH_SFT;
+ tdm_con |= (bit_width - 1) <<
ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_WORD_LENGTH_SFT;
+ tdm_con |= (tdm_channels - 1) << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_CH_NUM_SFT;
+ /* default disable sync mode */
+ tdm_con |= 0 << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_SYNC_MODE_SFT;
0 << (anything) == 0
(number |= 0) == number
Is this a mistake, or are you really doing nothing here?
No, this is just to emphasize the need to set this bit to 0.
It really do nothing here, just link a reminder.
Can I keep this sentence?
If, in your judgement, it is very important to have a reminder about that
bit having to be unset, then add a comment in the code saying so.
Don't simply comment out the statement as it is.
A good way would be something like
/* sync mode bit has to be unset because this that reason, otherwise X happens */
+ /* relatch fix to h26m */
+ tdm_con |= 0 << ETDM_IN1_CON0_REG_RELATCH_1X_EN_SEL_DOMAIN_SFT;
+
+ ctrl_reg = ETDM_IN1_CON0;
+ ctrl_mask = ETDM_IN_CON0_CTRL_MASK;
+ regmap_update_bits(afe->regmap, ctrl_reg, ctrl_mask, tdm_con);
+
+ /* ETDM_IN1_CON1 */
+ tdm_con = 0;
+ tdm_con |= 0 << ETDM_IN1_CON1_REG_LRCK_AUTO_MODE_SFT;
+ tdm_con |= 1 << ETDM_IN1_CON1_PINMUX_MCLK_CTRL_OE_SFT;
+ tdm_con |= (lrck_width - 1) <<
ETDM_IN1_CON1_REG_LRCK_WIDTH_SFT;
+
+ ctrl_reg = ETDM_IN1_CON1;
+ ctrl_mask = ETDM_IN_CON1_CTRL_MASK;
+ regmap_update_bits(afe->regmap, ctrl_reg, ctrl_mask, tdm_con);
You don't need the ctrl_reg, nor ctrl_mask variables...
I was trying to avoid a line of more than 80 words, so I shortened the
number of words through variables.
Yes, I know, I did understand what you were trying to do...
...but it's fine to go past 80: in this case this would be 88 columns,
which is still ok to have!
And note, this is the case with all of similar calls present in this function,
that's why I said that you don't need these two variables! :)
Thank you,
Angelo
