On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 03:58:53PM +0800, Jiaxin Yu wrote:

> +static const struct soc_enum mt8192_i2s_enum[] = {
> +	SOC_ENUM_SINGLE_EXT(ARRAY_SIZE(mt8192_i2s_hd_str),
> +			    mt8192_i2s_hd_str),
> +};

Why is this declared as a single element array?  It just makes all the
usages look odd for no obvious gain.

> +static int mtk_i2s_en_event(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *w,
> +			    struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> +			    int event)

> +	dev_info(cmpnt->dev, "%s(), name %s, event 0x%x\n",
> +		 __func__, w->name, event);

This should be dev_dbg() at most, _info() will be too noisy in the logs.
Same for a lot of functions, including the stream callbacks.

> +static int mtk_i2s_hd_en_event(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *w,
> +			       struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> +			       int event)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_component *cmpnt = snd_soc_dapm_to_component(w->dapm);
> +
> +	dev_info(cmpnt->dev, "%s(), name %s, event 0x%x\n",
> +		 __func__, w->name, event);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

This should just be removed entirely, there's trace in the core if you
need logging in production systems - the tracepoints in particular are
good for just leaving on all the time without adding overhead.

> +	return (i2s_need_apll == cur_apll) ? 1 : 0;

Please write normal conditional statements to improve legiblity.

> +	if (rate == 44100)
> +		regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON3, 0x001B9000);
> +	else if (rate == 32000)
> +		regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON3, 0x140000);
> +	else
> +		regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON3, 0x001E0000);

This would be better written as a switch statement.

> +	/* Calibration setting */
> +	regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON4, 0x00140000);
> +	regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON9, 0x00036000);
> +	regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON10, 0x0002FC00);
> +	regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON6, 0x00007EF4);
> +	regmap_write(afe->regmap, AFE_ASRC_2CH_CON5, 0x00FF5986);

Are you sure this isn't system dependant?