Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: fsl-asoc-card: Remove fsl_asoc_card_set_bias_level function

[Nicolin Chen]

Hi,

Having two nits and one question, inline:

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 05:47:02PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> @@ -182,6 +180,69 @@ static int fsl_asoc_card_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>  					       cpu_priv->slot_width);
>  		if (ret && ret != -ENOTSUPP) {
>  			dev_err(dev, "failed to set TDM slot for cpu dai\n");
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Specific configuration for PLL */
> +	if (codec_priv->pll_id && codec_priv->fll_id) {
> +		if (priv->sample_format == SNDRV_PCM_FORMAT_S24_LE)
> +			pll_out = priv->sample_rate * 384;
> +		else
> +			pll_out = priv->sample_rate * 256;
> +
> +		ret = snd_soc_dai_set_pll(asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, 0),
> +					  codec_priv->pll_id,
> +					  codec_priv->mclk_id,
> +					  codec_priv->mclk_freq, pll_out);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to start FLL: %d\n", ret);
> +			goto out;
> +		}
> +
> +		ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(asoc_rtd_to_codec(rtd, 0),
> +					     codec_priv->fll_id,
> +					     pll_out, SND_SOC_CLOCK_IN);

Just came into my mind: do we need some protection here to prevent
PLL/SYSCLK reconfiguration if TX/RX end up with different values?

> +	return 0;
> +
> +out:
> +	priv->streams &= ~BIT(substream->stream);
> +	return ret;

Rather than "out:" which doesn't explicitly indicate an error-out,
"fail:" would be better, following what we used in probe().

> +static int fsl_asoc_card_hw_free(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd = substream->private_data;
> +	struct fsl_asoc_card_priv *priv = snd_soc_card_get_drvdata(rtd->card);
> +	struct codec_priv *codec_priv = &priv->codec_priv;
> +	struct device *dev = rtd->card->dev;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	priv->streams &= ~BIT(substream->stream);
> +

> +	if (!priv->streams && codec_priv->pll_id &&
> +	    codec_priv->fll_id) {

This now can fit into single line :)