[PATCH] ASoC: fsl_sai: Clean code for synchronize mode

Nicolin Chen nicoleotsuka at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 12:11:15 AEST 2020


On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 09:39:44AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:57 AM Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:04:23PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> >
> > > > > clock generation. The TCSR.TE is no need to enabled when only RX
> > > > > is enabled.
> > > >
> > > > You are correct if there's only RX running without TX joining.
> > > > However, that's something we can't guarantee. Then we'd enable
> > > > TE after RE is enabled, which is against what RM recommends:
> > > >
> > > > # From 54.3.3.1 Synchronous mode in IMX6SXRM
> > > > # If the receiver bit clock and frame sync are to be used by
> > > > # both the transmitter and receiver, it is recommended that
> > > > # the receiver is the last enabled and the first disabled.
> > > >
> > > > I remember I did this "ugly" design by strictly following what
> > > > RM says. If hardware team has updated the RM or removed this
> > > > limitation, please quote in the commit logs.
> > >
> > > There is no change in RM and same recommandation.
> > >
> > > My change does not violate the RM. The direction which generates
> > > the clock is still last enabled.
> >
> > Using Tx syncing with Rx clock for example,
> > T1: arecord (non-stop) => set RE
> > T2: aplay => set TE then RE (but RE is already set at T1)
> >
> > Anything that I am missing?
> 
> This is a good example.
> We have used this change locally for a long time, so I think it is
> safe to do this change, a little different with the recommandation.

Any reason for we have to go against the recommendation?


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list