Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 15:29:12 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Matt Porter <mporter@konsulko.com>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        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: <20180309152912.GF5252@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20180227225128.17815-1-mporter@konsulko.com>
 <20180227225128.17815-3-mporter@konsulko.com>
 <20180228110038.GA6722@sirena.org.uk>
 <20180309143548.xuajwfhiwuua7jg5@bacon.ohporter.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FeAIMMcddNRN4P4/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180309143548.xuajwfhiwuua7jg5@bacon.ohporter.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--FeAIMMcddNRN4P4/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

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.

> > > +	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.

--FeAIMMcddNRN4P4/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlqiqEcACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DjSwf/QqqpF+vmYV6qsaB0YjTlO0Nh5EAkOzubnQ8tIVazX3xRgK40/kbW+jyI
7beYEg+CO4znTEZGClm121f1oeWUDc+cZCnPsCBcIDzhUsbgPdJRMIq3Rp/3Cv6a
6DYqlhjs49h0tHu6OEXvC9rWWdSaNSePF6OQu7S73QpTJ/IMv5KFe3d+3A/nUXLs
5iyUraQBY1PkC7RdHbUSqHL3iTAzj3oGP9BmL9F50JmbE2ksjmgdIBj8g1Y+yjaP
AG4n5ZBJdDURjO0GyGADSxqTVX7Crj9mClrj9ZEJ6gncLnETmEk5a74MjmRoOeNd
/TBQW6/5doDKnhxI9abhGelsvZrG5g==
=sf3B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FeAIMMcddNRN4P4/--