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, 12 Sep 2019 16:21:37 -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>,
        "lgirdwood@gmail.com" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>,
        "perex@perex.cz" <perex@perex.cz>,
        "tiwai@suse.com" <tiwai@suse.com>,
        "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: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: fsl_asrc: Use in(out)put_format
 instead of in(out)put_word_width
Message-ID: <20190912232136.GC24937@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com>
References: <cover.1568025083.git.shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>
 <65e96ca15afd4a282b122f3ea8b13642cf4614c7.1568025083.git.shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>
 <20190909200156.GB10344@Asurada-Nvidia.nvidia.com>
 <VE1PR04MB6479D271F4271ECF404473E7E3B60@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB6479D271F4271ECF404473E7E3B60@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:22:06AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> Hi
> 
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:33:19PM -0400, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > > snd_pcm_format_t is more formal than enum asrc_word_width, which
> > has
> > > two property, width and physical width, which is more accurate than
> > > enum asrc_word_width. So it is better to use in(out)put_format instead
> > > of in(out)put_word_width.
> > 
> > Hmm...I don't really see the benefit of using snd_pcm_format_t here...I
> > mean, I know it's a generic one, and would understand if we use it as a
> > param for a common API. But this patch merely packs the "width" by
> > intentionally using this snd_pcm_format_t and then adds another
> > translation to unpack it.. I feel it's a bit overcomplicated. Or am I missing
> > something?
> > 
> > And I feel it's not necessary to use ALSA common format in our own "struct
> > asrc_config" since it is more IP/register specific.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Nicolin
> > 
> 
> As you know, we have another M2M function internally, when user want to
> Set the format through M2M API, it is better to use snd_pcm_format_t instead the
> Width, for snd_pcm_format_t include two property, data with and physical width
> In driver some place need data width, some place need physical width.
> For example how to distinguish S24_LE and S24_3LE in driver,  DMA setting needs
> The physical width,  but ASRC need data width. 
> 
> Another purpose is that we have another new designed ASRC, which support more
> Formats, I would like it can share same API with this ASRC, using snd_pcm_format_t
> That we can use the common API, like snd_pcm_format_linear,
> snd_pcm_format_big_endian to get the property of the format, which is needed by
> driver.

I see. Just acked the patch.