[PATCH v4 00/11] ASoC: fsl_ssi: Clean up - coding style level

[Caleb Crome]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:19:08PM -0800, Caleb Crome wrote:
>
>> > Acked-by: Timur Tabi <timur at tabi.org>
>
> --- To Mark ---
>
> Mark, can you still take these changes first? Since this failed
> test that Caleb reported here is already existing on the top of
> the mainline tree, I would like to treat this mail as a separate
> bug report and fix it with a separate patch.
>
> Besides, this series of changes don't change any function flow.
>
> Thank you
>

Sorry!  I should have created a separate thread for this subject.  My
comments have *nothing* to do with this patch set, except they are
about the same source files.

>
> --- To Caleb ---
>
>> I'm re-setting up my loopback test to try to verify these most recent changes.
>
> I really appreciate your verification and help.

Of course!  I have this wandboard permanently set up for this
verification test, so that I can easily repeat whenever I touch our
kernel.

It's a dead-simple hardware mod just to connect TX to RX.

>
>> warn:   11a0 11a1 1160 11a3 11a4 11a5 11a6 11a7
>> warn: Valid frame after 1 invalid frames
>> warn:   11c0 11c1 11c2 11c3 11c4 11c5 11c6 11c7
>> warn: first invalid frame while expecting frame 0x00a0
>> warn:   13e7 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1404
>> warn:   1407 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426
>> warn:   1427 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1484
>> warn:   1447 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466
>>
>> Those last 4 lines are the channel slips -- the least significant
>> nibble should be the channel number:  i.e. should go 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
>> 6, 7.
>>
>> Ugh, so it's basically quite broken again -- before these patches.
>
> I remember Arnaud reviewed one of my changes back to September.
> So I suppose the test should be fine at that time -- so a change
> being merged recently might have impacted the test result.


It's certainly possible that I'm doing something wrong again -- it
wouldn't be the first time :-)

>
>> I guess I need to go backwards in time and see what rev re-broke it.
>> I don't really have time to dig too deep on this again.
>>
>> I'd be happy to provide the hardware to anybody that can diagnose and
>> debug this more quickly than I can.  I'm very inefficient at kernel
>> drivers I think.   My day job is acoustical and electrical
>> engineering.
>>
>> Here's what the hardware looks like for anybody that's interested.
>> Just a single wire loopback on the wandboard header.
>
> I would definitely like to take the hardware to debug it as long
> as you are willing to provide me. Can you send me a private mail
> to discuss about it?

Absolutely.
-Caleb


>
> Thanks
> Nicolin