> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Keepax [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 7:14 AM
> To: Ryans Lee <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: Add support for Maxim
> Integrated MAX98927 Amplifier
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:40:23AM +0900, Ryan Lee wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Lee <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Resubmit the intial version of MAX98927 driver. Added all fixes into the
>> initial patch.
> <snip>
>> +static int max98927_reg_get(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
>> + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol, unsigned int reg,
>> + unsigned int mask, unsigned int shift) {
>> + struct snd_soc_codec *codec = snd_soc_kcontrol_codec(kcontrol);
>> + struct max98927_priv *max98927 = snd_soc_codec_get_drvdata(codec);
>> + int data;
>> +
>> + regmap_read(max98927->regmap, reg, &data);
>> + ucontrol->value.integer.value[0] = (data & mask) >> shift;
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int max98927_reg_put(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
>> + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol, unsigned int reg,
>> + unsigned int mask, unsigned int shift) {
>> + struct snd_soc_codec *codec = snd_soc_kcontrol_codec(kcontrol);
>> + struct max98927_priv *max98927 = snd_soc_codec_get_drvdata(codec);
>> + unsigned int sel = ucontrol->value.integer.value[0];
>> +
>> + regmap_update_bits(max98927->regmap, reg, mask, sel << shift);
>> + dev_dbg(codec->dev, "%s: register 0x%02X, value 0x%02X\n",
>> + __func__, reg, sel);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> These functions look a lot like they duplicate things the ASoC core does?
You're right. I removed 'max98927_reg_get' and 'max98927_reg_put' function to
avoid duplication.
>
> <snip>
>> +static int max98927_boost_voltage_get(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
>> + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol) {
>> + return max98927_reg_get(kcontrol, ucontrol,
>> + MAX98927_R0040_BOOST_CTRL0,
>> + MAX98927_BOOST_CTRL0_VOUT_MASK, 0); }
>> +
>
> And can't these just be specified in the normal way with the register
> information attached to the control? There doesn't seem to be any special
> behaviour being added here. Apologies if I am missing something here.
Thank you for your feedback. Now SOC_ENUM_EXT was replaced by SOC_ENUM.
SOC_SINGLE_EXT was also replaced by SOC_SINGLE. Above function is no longer
being used.
>
> Thanks,
> Charles
