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:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:03:50 -0800
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>,
        "lgirdwood@gmail.com" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        "perex@perex.cz" <perex@perex.cz>,
        "tiwai@suse.com" <tiwai@suse.com>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ASoC: fsl_easrc: Add EASRC ASoC CPU DAI and
 platform drivers
Message-ID: <20200225080350.GA11332@Asurada>
References: <VE1PR04MB6479BCA376502F6F1251602BE3EC0@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB6479BCA376502F6F1251602BE3EC0@VE1PR04MB6479.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 08:53:25AM +0000, S.j. Wang wrote:
> Hi
> 
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@nxp.com>
> > > ---
> > >  sound/soc/fsl/Kconfig           |   10 +
> > >  sound/soc/fsl/Makefile          |    2 +
> > >  sound/soc/fsl/fsl_asrc_common.h |    1 +
> > >  sound/soc/fsl/fsl_easrc.c       | 2265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  sound/soc/fsl/fsl_easrc.h       |  668 +++++++++
> > >  sound/soc/fsl/fsl_easrc_dma.c   |  440 ++++++
> > 
> > I see a 90% similarity between fsl_asrc_dma and fsl_easrc_dma files.
> > Would it be possible reuse the existing code? Could share structures from
> > my point of view, just like it reuses "enum asrc_pair_index", I know
> > differentiating "pair" and "context" is a big point here though.
> > 
> > A possible quick solution for that, off the top of my head, could be:
> > 
> > 1) in fsl_asrc_common.h
> > 
> >         struct fsl_asrc {
> >                 ....
> >         };
> > 
> >         struct fsl_asrc_pair {
> >                 ....
> >         };
> > 
> > 2) in fsl_easrc.h
> > 
> >         /* Renaming shared structures */
> >         #define fsl_easrc fsl_asrc
> >         #define fsl_easrc_context fsl_asrc_pair
> > 
> > May be a good idea to see if others have some opinion too.
> > 
> 
> We need to modify the fsl_asrc and fsl_asrc_pair, let them
> To be used by both driver,  also we need to put the specific
> Definition for each module to same struct, right?

Yea. A merged structure if that doesn't look that bad. I see most
of the fields in struct fsl_asrc are being reused by in fsl_easrc.

> > 
> > > +static const struct regmap_config fsl_easrc_regmap_config = {
> > > +     .readable_reg = fsl_easrc_readable_reg,
> > > +     .volatile_reg = fsl_easrc_volatile_reg,
> > > +     .writeable_reg = fsl_easrc_writeable_reg,
> > 
> > Can we use regmap_range and regmap_access_table?
> > 
> 
> Can the regmap_range support discontinuous registers?  The
> reg_stride = 4.

I think it does. Giving an example here:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/mfd/da9063-i2c.c