RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: fsl_asrc: Use in(out)put_format instead of in(out)put_word_width
Hi > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:33:19PM -0400, Shengjiu Wang wrote: > > snd_pcm_format_t is more formal than enum asrc_word_width, which > has > > two property, width and physical width, which is more accurate than > > enum asrc_word_width. So it is better to use in(out)put_format instead > > of in(out)put_word_width. > > Hmm...I don't really see the benefit of using snd_pcm_format_t here...I > mean, I know it's a generic one, and would understand if we use it as a > param for a common API. But this patch merely packs the "width" by > intentionally using this snd_pcm_format_t and then adds another > translation to unpack it.. I feel it's a bit overcomplicated. Or am I missing > something? > > And I feel it's not necessary to use ALSA common format in our own "struct > asrc_config" since it is more IP/register specific. > > Thanks > Nicolin > As you know, we have another M2M function internally, when user want to Set the format through M2M API, it is better to use snd_pcm_format_t instead the Width, for snd_pcm_format_t include two property, data with and physical width In driver some place need data width, some place need physical width. For example how to distinguish S24_LE and S24_3LE in driver, DMA setting needs The physical width, but ASRC need data width. Another purpose is that we have another new designed ASRC, which support more Formats, I would like it can share same API with this ASRC, using snd_pcm_format_t That we can use the common API, like snd_pcm_format_linear, snd_pcm_format_big_endian to get the property of the format, which is needed by driver. Best regards Wang shengjiu
Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/3] ASoC: fsl_asrc: Use in(out)put_format instead of in(out)put_word_width
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:22:06AM +, S.j. Wang wrote: > Hi > > > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:33:19PM -0400, Shengjiu Wang wrote: > > > snd_pcm_format_t is more formal than enum asrc_word_width, which > > has > > > two property, width and physical width, which is more accurate than > > > enum asrc_word_width. So it is better to use in(out)put_format instead > > > of in(out)put_word_width. > > > > Hmm...I don't really see the benefit of using snd_pcm_format_t here...I > > mean, I know it's a generic one, and would understand if we use it as a > > param for a common API. But this patch merely packs the "width" by > > intentionally using this snd_pcm_format_t and then adds another > > translation to unpack it.. I feel it's a bit overcomplicated. Or am I > > missing > > something? > > > > And I feel it's not necessary to use ALSA common format in our own "struct > > asrc_config" since it is more IP/register specific. > > > > Thanks > > Nicolin > > > > As you know, we have another M2M function internally, when user want to > Set the format through M2M API, it is better to use snd_pcm_format_t instead > the > Width, for snd_pcm_format_t include two property, data with and physical width > In driver some place need data width, some place need physical width. > For example how to distinguish S24_LE and S24_3LE in driver, DMA setting > needs > The physical width, but ASRC need data width. > > Another purpose is that we have another new designed ASRC, which support more > Formats, I would like it can share same API with this ASRC, using > snd_pcm_format_t > That we can use the common API, like snd_pcm_format_linear, > snd_pcm_format_big_endian to get the property of the format, which is needed > by > driver. I see. Just acked the patch.
