From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754181AbeCRRWH (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:22:07 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:36311 "EHLO mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751750AbeCRRWD (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:22:03 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv8mXPowkHhzecx5I/SyIqrnu8Rp49H/ueZFGlcBMEa3nMr+pEORNkkRMVCZnyQwnZmUT0V6w== Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:21:59 -0400 From: Matt Porter To: Mark Brown Cc: Liam Girdwood , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: add tda7419 audio processor driver Message-ID: <20180318172159.cp3qfyprfkk6rueb@bacon.ohporter.com> References: <20180227225128.17815-1-mporter@konsulko.com> <20180227225128.17815-3-mporter@konsulko.com> <20180228110038.GA6722@sirena.org.uk> <20180309143548.xuajwfhiwuua7jg5@bacon.ohporter.com> <20180309152912.GF5252@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180309152912.GF5252@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:29:12PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:35:48AM -0500, Matt Porter wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:00:38AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:51:28PM -0500, Matt Porter wrote: > > > > > +static struct snd_kcontrol_new tda7419_controls[] = { > > > > +SOC_ENUM("Main Source Select", soc_enum_main_src_sel), > > > > Should this be a DAPM route? > > > Ultimately yes. I initially took the path of ignoring DAPM support in > > interests of getting some clean done. Is it ok to merge DAPM support > > later or do you prefer just having it in the intitial driver? For > > routes, it'll include Main/Second source selects, the Rear Source > > switch, and Mix enable at least. > > You definitely shouldn't be implementing things that should be in DAPM > as non-DAPM controls. Ok, I addressed this by adding DAPM support in v2. > > > > + regmap_write(tda7419->regmap, TDA7419_ATTENUATOR_SUB_REG, 0xe0); > > > > This looks like it's setting default volumes - just leave those at the > > > chip defaults and let userspace handle setting them, what works for one > > > board may be totally inappropriate on another board and using the chip > > > default means we've got some fixed thing we don't need to discuss. > > > This is actually setting the default/cache to the first mute value due > > to the assumption in my implementation of the tda7419-specific get/set > > for these registers. It simplified the code a bit to have these > > initialized like this. e.g. for the attenuator group of registers, > > x11xxxxx are all mute values, so 0xe0 is setting these regs to that > > first mute value to simplify things. I'll take another look at > > eliminating this. As it is, it does not change the fact that the actual > > reset value of 0xff is also mute from a user POV. > > If it is useful it definitely needs a comment explaining what's > happening and that there's no practical change to the configuration. It > would be nicer to be robust against the device getting a wider range of > values in the register but that seems plausible. I did some rework to make this unnecessary in v2. Thanks, Matt