Hi,
On 23/11/2023 18:43, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:49:14PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
Add Soundwire Slave driver for the WCD9390/WCD9395 Audio Codec.
The WCD9390/WCD9395 Soundwire Slaves will be used by the
Please avoid using outdated terminology, "device" is probably a good
alternative here. There are some usages in APIs that need to be updated
but still, good to avoid where possible.
Sure, I simply kept the current Soundwire kernel terminologies,
I'll change it to Device.
+static struct wcd939x_sdw_ch_info wcd939x_sdw_tx_ch_info[] = {
+ WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC1, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(0)),
+ WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC2, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(1)),
+ WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC3, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(2)),
+ WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC4, WCD939X_ADC_1_4_PORT, BIT(3)),
+ // TOFIX support ADC3/4 & DMIC0/1 on port 2
+ //WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC3, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(0)),
+ //WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_ADC4, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(1)),
+ //WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_DMIC0, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(2)),
+ //WCD_SDW_CH(WCD939X_DMIC1, WCD939X_ADC_DMIC_1_2_PORT, BIT(3)),
Why are these commented out?
Future feature support, will remove and add those on my internal TODO list...
+static int wcd9390_interrupt_callback(struct sdw_slave *slave,
+ struct sdw_slave_intr_status *status)
+{
+ struct wcd939x_sdw_priv *wcd = dev_get_drvdata(&slave->dev);
+ struct irq_domain *slave_irq = wcd->slave_irq;
+ u32 sts1, sts2, sts3;
+
+ do {
+ handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(slave_irq, 0));
+ regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_0, &sts1);
+ regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_1, &sts2);
+ regmap_read(wcd->regmap, WCD939X_DIGITAL_INTR_STATUS_2, &sts3);
+
+ } while (sts1 || sts2 || sts3);
+
+ return IRQ_HANDLED;
+}
We do this in the other Qualcomm drivers but it doesn't seem ideal to
just ignore the interrupts.
It seems we simply ignore IRQs that are not mapped in the regmap_irq,
what would be the ideal way to handle this ?
+static int wcd939x_sdw_component_bind(struct device *dev, struct device *master,
+ void *data)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void wcd939x_sdw_component_unbind(struct device *dev,
+ struct device *master, void *data)
+{
+}
+
+static const struct component_ops wcd939x_sdw_component_ops = {
+ .bind = wcd939x_sdw_component_bind,
+ .unbind = wcd939x_sdw_component_unbind,
+};
Do these need to be provided if they can legitimately be empty?
AFAIK yes, component code will crash if those are not defined.
I'll add a comment explaining whey they are no-op.
Thanks,
Neil
