lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ASoC: Add MediaTek MT6660 Speaker Amp Driver
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:15:34PM +0800, Jeff Chang wrote:

> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/mt6660.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,653 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2019 MediaTek Inc.
> + */

Please make the entire comment a C++ one so things look more
intentional.

> + { MT6660_REG_DEVID, 2},
> + { MT6660_REG_TDM_CFG3, 2},
> + { MT6660_REG_HCLIP_CTRL, 2},
> + { MT6660_REG_DA_GAIN, 2},

Missing space before the } (the same thing happens in some of the
other tables).

> +static int mt6660_component_get_volsw(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)
> +{
> + struct snd_soc_component *component =
> + snd_soc_kcontrol_component(kcontrol);
> + struct mt6660_chip *chip = (struct mt6660_chip *)
> + snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!strcmp(kcontrol->id.name, "Chip_Rev")) {

Why would this be used on a different control?

> + SOC_SINGLE_EXT("BoostMode", MT6660_REG_BST_CTRL, 0, 3, 0,
> + snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),

Boost Mode. You've also got a lot of these controls that are _EXT but
you then just use standard operations so it's not clear why you're using
_EXT.

> + SOC_SINGLE_EXT("audio input selection", MT6660_REG_DATAO_SEL, 6, 3, 0,
> + snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),

Audio Input Selection, but this looks like it should be a DAPM control
if it's controlling audio routing. A simple numerical setting
definitely doesn't seem like the right thing.

> + SOC_SINGLE_EXT("AUD LOOP BACK Switch", MT6660_REG_PATH_BYPASS, 4, 1, 0,
> + snd_soc_get_volsw, snd_soc_put_volsw),

This sounds like it should be a DAPM thing too.

> +static int mt6660_component_probe(struct snd_soc_component *component)
> +{
> + struct mt6660_chip *chip = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + dev_info(component->dev, "%s\n", __func__);

dev_dbg() at most but probably better to remove this and the other
similar dev_info()s.

> +static inline int _mt6660_chip_id_check(struct mt6660_chip *chip)
> +{
> + u8 id[2] = {0};
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(chip->i2c, MT6660_REG_DEVID, 2, id);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + ret = (id[0] << 8) + id[1];
> + ret &= 0x0ff0;
> + if (ret != 0x00e0 && ret != 0x01e0)
> + return -ENODEV;

It'd be better to print an error message saying we don't recognize the
device to help people doing debugging.

> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "rt,init_setting_num", &val)) {
> + dev_info(dev, "no init setting\n");
> + chip->plat_data.init_setting_num = 0;

You should be adding a DT binding document for any new DT bindings.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-20 13:13    [W:0.046 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site