On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 09:46:12AM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:25 AM Nicolin Chen wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:09:00PM +0300, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> > > From: Mihai Serban
> > >
> > > EDMA requires the period size to be multiple of maxburst. Otherwise the
> > > remaining bytes are not transferred and thus noise is produced.
> > >
> > > We can handle this issue by adding a constraint on
> > > SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIOD_SIZE to be multiple of tx/rx maxburst value.
> > >
> > > Cc: NXP Linux Team
> > > Signed-off-by: Mihai Serban
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Baluta
> > > ---
> > > sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c | 15 +++
> > > sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c
> > > index 728307acab90..fe126029f4e3 100644
> > > --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c
> > > +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.c
> > > @@ -612,6 +612,16 @@ static int fsl_sai_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream
> > > *substream,
> > > FSL_SAI_CR3_TRCE_MASK,
> > > FSL_SAI_CR3_TRCE);
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * some DMA controllers need period size to be a multiple of
> > > + * tx/rx maxburst
> > > + */
> > > + if (sai->soc_data->use_constraint_period_size)
> > > + snd_pcm_hw_constraint_step(substream->runtime, 0,:
> > > +SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIOD_SIZE,
> > > +tx ? sai->dma_params_tx.maxburst
> > > :
> > > +sai->dma_params_rx.maxburst);
> >
> > I feel that PERIOD_SIZE could be used for some other cases than
> > being related to maxburst
> >
> > > static const struct of_device_id fsl_sai_ids[] = {
> > > diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h
> > > index b89b0ca26053..3a3f6f8e5595 100644
> > > --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h
> > > +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_sai.h
> > > @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@
> > >
> > > struct fsl_sai_soc_data {
> > > bool use_imx_pcm;
> > > + bool use_constraint_period_size;
> >
> > so maybe the soc specific flag here could be something like
> > bool use_edma;
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I think your suggestion is a little bit better than what we have. But what if
The better part of using "edma" word, I felt, is to match this
"soc" word in the structure name.
> in the future another DMA controler (not eDMA) will need the same constraint.
That sounds like a valid point to me, I don't feel it'd happen
that often though. I'd be okay if you insist to keep yours :)
