Re: [PATCH v1] ASoC: simple-card-utils: set CPU sysclk before codec for mclk-fs
From: Stefano Radaelli
Date: Tue Feb 10 2026 - 04:34:12 EST
Hi Kuninori
>
> Actually, this is one of my concern (= which should be worked first
> (CPU or Codec)). I don't remember why current code calls Codec first,
> but maybe original code was.
> I guess, some other Card needs to call as-is (= Codec first), and
> you want to call opposite (= CPU first). It depends on clock
> provider/consumer settings, instead of mclk-fs, but based on each Card.
>
> Not same but similar issue we had before about how we want to call
> .trigger.
>
> 356caf663deee8dc46ff3168ec0b24bcbeb00b28
> ("ASoC: add new trigger ordering method")
>
> It was fixed order, but is now controlled by flag.
> Maybe we want to have similar method ?
>
> // unreliable name
> #define XX_CLK_START_CODEC_FIRST 0
> #define XX_CLK_START_CPU_FIRST 1
>
> if (xx_clk_start_first == XX_CLK_START_CODEC_FIRST) {
> // same as current code
> start_codec_clk()
> start_cpu_clk()
> } else {
> // opposite
> start_cpu_clk()
> start_codec_clk()
> }
>
Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that the default ordering should
remain unchanged to maintain backward compatibility, and we should
implement a configurable feature to change the order when needed.
Following your recommendation, I could implement something similar to the
trigger ordering approach:
#define SND_SOC_SYSCLK_ORDER_CODEC_FIRST 0
#define SND_SOC_SYSCLK_ORDER_CPU_FIRST 1
static int asoc_simple_init_dai(struct snd_soc_dai *dai,
struct asoc_simple_dai *simple_dai)
{
int sysclk_order = SND_SOC_SYSCLK_ORDER_CODEC_FIRST; // <- Default
if (simple_dai->sysclk) {
if (sysclk_order == SND_SOC_SYSCLK_ORDER_CODEC_FIRST) {
// Codec first
ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(codec_dai, 0, sysclk, ...);
ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(cpu_dai, 0, sysclk, ...);
} else {
// CPU first
ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(cpu_dai, 0, sysclk, ...);
ret = snd_soc_dai_set_sysclk(codec_dai, 0, sysclk, ...);
}
}
}
This approach would work well for our case and is acceptable as-is for now.
The ordering would be controlled via the define in the driver code.
As a future enhancement, would you be open to adding a device tree property
to make this configurable per-board?
I'll send you v2 with this modification.
Thanks a lot for your guidance,
Best Regards,
Stefano