From: Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@diasemi.com>
To: "Lu, Brent" <brent.lu@intel.com>,
Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@diasemi.com>,
"alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
Cc: Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@diasemi.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ASoC: da7219: remove SRM lock check retry
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:57:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM5PR1001MB0994921AE80726BAC59C552B80420@AM5PR1001MB0994.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CF33C36214C39B4496568E5578BE70C7403CACC7@PGSMSX108.gar.corp.intel.com>
On 03 December 2019 14:36, Brent Lu wrote:
> > But on platforms where they can enable the WCLK early they shouldn't be
> > looping around here for anything like 400ms. In an ideal world when that
> > widget is run SRM should hopefully be already locked but the code does
> > allow for some delay. Actually, having a long delay also helps show the user
> > that something isn't right here so I'm somewhat loathed to change this.
> >
> > Even if you do reduce the retry timings what you're still not protecting
> > against is the possibility of audio artefacts when SRM finally locks. You want
> > this to lock before the any of the audio path is up so I think we need to find a
> > way to resolve that rather than relying on getting lucky with a smooth power-
> > up.
> >
> Hi Adam,
>
> Thanks for the explanation. So the purpose of the code is providing some
> timing tolerance for SRM to lock? If so, I would suggest adding warning message
> for the lock fail so people have a clue if their design fails the CTS test. Hard to say
> if Google further reduces the Cold latency again in the future.
Yes, that's right. I have put in a request with our HW team to again clarify
timings, but still awaiting feedback.
The driver already warns via the kernel logs when SRM lock fails as follows:
dev_warn(component->dev, "SRM failed to lock\n");
What else do you think is needed?
>
>
> Regards,
> Brent
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-03 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-03 7:31 Brent Lu
2019-12-03 9:46 ` Adam Thomson
2019-12-03 10:32 ` Lu, Brent
2019-12-03 10:57 ` Adam Thomson
2019-12-03 14:36 ` Lu, Brent
2019-12-03 14:57 ` Adam Thomson [this message]
2019-12-03 15:23 ` Lu, Brent
2019-12-03 17:15 ` Adam Thomson
2019-12-03 13:57 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AM5PR1001MB0994921AE80726BAC59C552B80420@AM5PR1001MB0994.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM \
--to=adam.thomson.opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=Support.Opensource@diasemi.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=brent.lu@intel.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=tiwai@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®