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:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 12:17:09 -0700
From:   Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@gmail.com>
To:     "S.j. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@nxp.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
Message-ID: <20190418191708.GA14885@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com>
References: <VE1PR04MB6479228E9CAE2A432D904BC7E3260@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB6479228E9CAE2A432D904BC7E3260@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:37:06AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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 rate is 192KHz.
> > > >
> > > > So I think that we can just drop that 8.125 condition from your
> > > > change and there's no need to error out any more.
> > > >
> > > No, if outrate=8kHz,  inrate > 88.2kHz, these cases are not supported.
> > > This is not covered by
> > >
> > >         if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
> > >             (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
> > 
> > Good catch. The range should be [8KHz, 30KHz] vs. (8KHz, 32KHz) in the
> > code. Then I think the fix should be at both lines:
> > 
> > -         if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
> > -             (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
> > +         if ((outrate >= 8000 && outrate =< 30000) &&
> > +             (outrate > 24 * inrate || inrate > 8 * outrate)) {
> > 
> > Overall, I think we should fix this instead of adding an extra one, since it is
> > very likely saying the same thing.
> 
> Actually if outrate < 8kHz, there will be issue too.

Here is the thing, the RM doesn't explicitly state that ASRC can
support a lower output sample rate than 8KHz. And I actually had
a concern when reviewing your PATCH-2, as the table of supported
output sample rate no longer matches RM.

If you've verified a lower output sample rate working solid with
the process_option function, that means our driver can go beyond
the limitation mentioned in the RM, then I believe [8KHz, 32KHz]
should be updated too -- that says we can do:
-	if ((outrate > 8000 && outrate < 30000) &&
-	    (outrate/inrate > 24 || inrate/outrate > 8)) {
+	if ((outrate >= 5512 && outrate =< 30000) &&
+	    (outrate > 24 * inrate || inrate > 8 * outrate)) {

Actually "ourate > 24 * inrate" is kind of pointless for range
[5KHz, 32KHz] but we can keep it since it matches RM.