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;
From:   "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
CC:     "timur@kernel.org" <timur@kernel.org>,
        "Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com" <Xiubo.Lee@gmail.com>,
        "festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
        "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
        "alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ASoC: fsl_asrc: replace the process_option table
 with function
Thread-Topic: [PATCH V3 1/2] ASoC: fsl_asrc: replace the process_option table
 with function
Thread-Index: AdT1wt4f0LfTMAkAQai/jI2p7SWJLw==
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:50:48 +0000
Message-ID: <VE1PR04MB647965FEAF3506E1775397AEE3260@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 081fec1e-0255-40e5-2686-08d6c3daf470
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Apr 2019 08:50:48.9570
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1PR04MB6717
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi

>=20
>=20
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 02:37:03AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > > Here:
> > > > +     /* Does not support cases: Tsout > 8.125 * Tsin */
> > > > +     if (inrate * 8 > 65 * outrate)
>=20
> Though it might not matter any more (see my last comments), it should be
> "inrate > 8.125 * outrate" in the comments.
>=20
> > > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > And here:
> > > > +     ret =3D fsl_asrc_sel_proc(inrate, outrate, &pre_proc, &post_p=
roc);
> > > > +     if (ret) {
> > > > +             pair_err("No supported pre-processing options\n");
> > > > +             return ret;
> > > > +     }
> > >
> > > Instead of a general message, I was thinking of a more specific one
> > > by telling users that the ratio between the two rates isn't
> > > supported -- something similar to what I suggested previously:
> > >
> > >         pair_err("Does not support %d (input) > 8.125 * %d (output)\n=
",
> > >                  outrate, inrate);
> > >
>=20
> > In fsl_asrc_sel_proc,  we can't call the pair_err for there is no
> > struct fsl_asrc_pair *pair in the argument. Do you think we need to
> > add this argument?
>=20
> I's thinking of adding it to the top of fsl_asrc_config_pair() as a part =
of
> inrate-outrate-validation, however, I found that actually we already have=
 a
> similar check in the early routine:
>         if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
>             (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
>                 pair_err("exceed supported ratio range [1/24, 8] for \
>                          inrate/outrate: %d/%d\n", inrate, outrate);
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         }
>=20
> And this is according to IMX6DQRM:
>     Limited support for the case when output sampling rates is
>     between 8kHz and 30kHz. The limitation is the supported ratio
>     (Fsin/Fsout) range as between 1/24 to 8
>=20
> This should cover your 8.125 condition already, even if having an outrate
> range between [8KHz, 30KHz] check, since an outrate above 30KHz will not
> have an inrate bigger than 8.125 times of it, given the maximum input rat=
e
> is 192KHz.
>=20
> So I think that we can just drop that 8.125 condition from your change an=
d
> there's no need to error out any more.
>=20
No, if outrate=3D8kHz,  inrate > 88.2kHz, these cases are not supported.=20
This is not covered by

        if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
            (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {

> However, we do need a patch to fix a potential rounding issue:
> -           (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
> +           (outrate > 24 * inrate || inrate > 8 * outrate)) {
>=20
> Should fix the missing whitespace also. And it will be needed to send to
> stable kernel too. Will you help submit a change?
>=20
> Thanks