Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] ASoC: qdsp6: q6afe: add support to pcm ports

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, Feb 09, 2020 at 10:47:42AM -0500, Adam Serbinski wrote:

>  
> +#define AFE_API_VERSION_PCM_CONFIG	0x1
> +/* Enumeration for the auxiliary PCM synchronization signal
> + * provided by an external source.
> + */
> +
> +#define AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_EXTERNAL 0x0
> +/*	Enumeration for the auxiliary PCM synchronization signal
> + * provided by an internal source.
> + */

This is a *weird* commenting style for these #defines and it's not
consistent within the block, I'm seeing at least 3 different styles.

> +/*  Payload of the #AFE_PARAM_ID_PCM_CONFIG command's
> + * (PCM configuration parameter).
> + */
> +
> +struct afe_param_id_pcm_cfg {

Similar weird commenting here, please follow coding-style.rst.

> +	switch (cfg->fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS:
> +		pcfg->pcm_cfg.sync_src = AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_INTERNAL;
> +		break;
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> +		/* CPU is slave */
> +		pcfg->pcm_cfg.sync_src = AFE_PORT_PCM_SYNC_SRC_EXTERNAL;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		break;
> +	}

Why is this not returning an error on unsupported values?

> +
> +	switch (cfg->sample_rate) {
> +	case 8000:
> +		pcfg->pcm_cfg.frame_setting = AFE_PORT_PCM_BITS_PER_FRAME_128;
> +		break;
> +	case 16000:
> +		pcfg->pcm_cfg.frame_setting = AFE_PORT_PCM_BITS_PER_FRAME_64;
> +		break;
> +	}

Same here.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature