Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:47:24PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if > the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo > if the regulator is missing. It looks like there's multiple patches needed here from

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 02:47:24PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if > the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo > if the regulator is missing. It looks like there's multiple patches needed here from

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Clemens Gruber wrote: > Yes, I think so too. However I am unsure if we should also remove > SGTL5000_CHIP_LINREG_CTRL from the defaults as in Eric's patch 3/6 or > only keep the parts of the patch dealing with SGTL5000_CHIP_ANA_POWER.

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Clemens Gruber wrote: > Yes, I think so too. However I am unsure if we should also remove > SGTL5000_CHIP_LINREG_CTRL from the defaults as in Eric's patch 3/6 or > only keep the parts of the patch dealing with SGTL5000_CHIP_ANA_POWER. > What do you think? I think

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Fabio, On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:22:55PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Clemens, > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Clemens Gruber > wrote: > > > I looked into this today and discovered the following: > > > > With my patch applied, if I reset the board just

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Fabio, On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:22:55PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Clemens, > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Clemens Gruber > wrote: > > > I looked into this today and discovered the following: > > > > With my patch applied, if I reset the board just after playback, at the > >

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Clemens, On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Clemens Gruber wrote: > I looked into this today and discovered the following: > > With my patch applied, if I reset the board just after playback, at the > next boot, the sgtl5000_fill_defaults function does not succeed:

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Clemens, On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Clemens Gruber wrote: > I looked into this today and discovered the following: > > With my patch applied, if I reset the board just after playback, at the > next boot, the sgtl5000_fill_defaults function does not succeed: Writing > the default value

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Eric, Fabio, Mark, On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:15:25PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > please don't merge the patch yet, I just observed a strange effect when > resetting the board during playback / just after playback stops. > At next boot time, sometimes the following error occurs: >

Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Eric, Fabio, Mark, On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:15:25PM +0200, Clemens Gruber wrote: > please don't merge the patch yet, I just observed a strange effect when > resetting the board during playback / just after playback stops. > At next boot time, sometimes the following error occurs: >

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Eric, On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:18:28AM +0200, Eric Nelson wrote: > AFAIK, the SGTL5000 versions < 0x11 are like Sasquatch: I've seen > no real proof of their existence. I tried to chase down when this > code was introduced, but it seems to have been around since > the dawn of the driver. >

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Eric, On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 07:18:28AM +0200, Eric Nelson wrote: > AFAIK, the SGTL5000 versions < 0x11 are like Sasquatch: I've seen > no real proof of their existence. I tried to chase down when this > code was introduced, but it seems to have been around since > the dawn of the driver. >

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Fabio and Clemens, On 06/03/2016 06:23 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > On 06/02/2016 05:48 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> Hi Clemens, >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Clemens Gruber >> wrote: >>> Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Fabio and Clemens, On 06/03/2016 06:23 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > On 06/02/2016 05:48 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> Hi Clemens, >> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Clemens Gruber >> wrote: >>> Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if >>> the VDDD

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Fabio, On 06/02/2016 05:48 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Clemens, > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Clemens Gruber > wrote: >> Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if >> the VDDD regulator exists and only call

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Fabio, On 06/02/2016 05:48 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Hi Clemens, > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Clemens Gruber > wrote: >> Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if >> the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo >> if the

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:56:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:48:15PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > > Sometime ago you were looking at this. What do you think about this patch? > > I'm rather concerned that the patches came from people working closely > with

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 05:56:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:48:15PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > > Sometime ago you were looking at this. What do you think about this patch? > > I'm rather concerned that the patches came from people working closely > with

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:48:15PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Sometime ago you were looking at this. What do you think about this patch? I'm rather concerned that the patches came from people working closely with Freescale already - are we *sure* that Freescale/NXP's public errata are

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:48:15PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > Sometime ago you were looking at this. What do you think about this patch? I'm rather concerned that the patches came from people working closely with Freescale already - are we *sure* that Freescale/NXP's public errata are

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Clemens, On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Clemens Gruber wrote: > Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if > the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo > if the regulator is missing. > Otherwise, the user

Re: [PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Hi Clemens, On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Clemens Gruber wrote: > Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if > the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo > if the regulator is missing. > Otherwise, the user reads in the kernel log that

[PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo if the regulator is missing. Otherwise, the user reads in the kernel log that the internal LDO is used, even though he did follow the NXP recommendation to

[PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo if the regulator is missing. Otherwise, the user reads in the kernel log that the internal LDO is used, even though he did follow the NXP recommendation to

[PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo if the regulator is missing. Otherwise, the user reads in the kernel log that the internal LDO is used, even though he did follow the NXP recommendation to

[PATCH] ASoC: sgtl5000: only check VDDD-supply, not revision

Instead of checking the SGTL5000 chip revision, we should only check if the VDDD regulator exists and only call sgtl5000_replace_vddd_with_ldo if the regulator is missing. Otherwise, the user reads in the kernel log that the internal LDO is used, even though he did follow the NXP recommendation to