On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:35:48AM -0500, Matt Porter wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:00:38AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:51:28PM -0500, Matt Porter wrote:
> > > +static struct snd_kcontrol_new tda7419_controls[] = {
> > > +SOC_ENUM("Main Source Select", soc_enum_main_src_sel),
> > Should this be a DAPM route?
> Ultimately yes. I initially took the path of ignoring DAPM support in
> interests of getting some clean done. Is it ok to merge DAPM support
> later or do you prefer just having it in the intitial driver? For
> routes, it'll include Main/Second source selects, the Rear Source
> switch, and Mix enable at least.
You definitely shouldn't be implementing things that should be in DAPM
as non-DAPM controls.
> > > + regmap_write(tda7419->regmap, TDA7419_ATTENUATOR_SUB_REG, 0xe0);
> > This looks like it's setting default volumes - just leave those at the
> > chip defaults and let userspace handle setting them, what works for one
> > board may be totally inappropriate on another board and using the chip
> > default means we've got some fixed thing we don't need to discuss.
> This is actually setting the default/cache to the first mute value due
> to the assumption in my implementation of the tda7419-specific get/set
> for these registers. It simplified the code a bit to have these
> initialized like this. e.g. for the attenuator group of registers,
> x11xxxxx are all mute values, so 0xe0 is setting these regs to that
> first mute value to simplify things. I'll take another look at
> eliminating this. As it is, it does not change the fact that the actual
> reset value of 0xff is also mute from a user POV.
If it is useful it definitely needs a comment explaining what's
happening and that there's no practical change to the configuration. It
would be nicer to be robust against the device getting a wider range of
values in the register but that seems plausible.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
