[alsa-devel] [RFC][PATCH v1] ASoC: fsl_ssi: Add DAI master mode support for SSI on i.MX series

[Timur Tabi]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Nicolin Chen
<Guangyu.Chen at freescale.com> wrote:
>
> +static int fsl_ssi_set_dai_sysclk(struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai,
> +                                 int clk_id, unsigned int freq, int dir)
> +{
> +       struct fsl_ssi_private *ssi_private = snd_soc_dai_get_drvdata(cpu_dai);
> +       struct ccsr_ssi __iomem *ssi = ssi_private->ssi;
> +       int synchronous = ssi_private->cpu_dai_drv.symmetric_rates, ret;
> +       u32 pm = 999, div2, psr, stccr, mask, afreq, factor, i;
> +       unsigned long flags, clkrate, baudrate, tmprate;
> +       u64 sub, savesub = 100000;
> +
> +       /* Don't apply it to any non-baudclk circumstance */
> +       if (IS_ERR(ssi_private->baudclk))
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +
> +       /* It should be already enough to divide clock by setting pm alone */
> +       psr = 0;
> +       div2 = 0;
> +
> +       factor = (div2 + 1) * (7 * psr + 1) * 2;
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < 255; i++) {
> +               /* The bclk rate must be smaller than 1/5 sysclk rate */
> +               if (factor * (i + 1) < 5)
> +                       continue;
> +
> +               tmprate = freq * factor * (i + 2);
> +               clkrate = clk_round_rate(ssi_private->baudclk, tmprate);
> +
> +               do_div(clkrate, factor);

This do_div() call causes this warning on PowerPC:

  CC      sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.o
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c: In function 'fsl_ssi_set_bclk':
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c:593:3: warning: comparison of distinct pointer
types lacks a cast
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c:593:3: warning: right shift count >= width of type
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c:593:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
'__div64_32' from incompatible pointer type
include/asm-generic/div64.h:35:17: note: expected 'uint64_t *' but
argument is of type 'long unsigned int *'

The comments in do_div() say that clkrate should be 64-bits.  Changing
clkrate to a u64 does fix this problem, but I'm wondering if anyone
else has seen this.  This code has been around for months.