mbox series

[0/3] ES8316 audio codec fixes on Rock5B

Message ID 20230524074156.147387-1-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com
Headers show
Series ES8316 audio codec fixes on Rock5B | expand

Message

Cristian Ciocaltea May 24, 2023, 7:41 a.m. UTC
This patch series handles a few issues related to the ES8316 audio 
codec, discovered while doing some testing on the Rock 5B board.

Cristian Ciocaltea (3):
  ASoC: es8316: Increment max value for ALC Capture Target Volume
    control
  ASoC: es8316: Do not set rate constraints for unsupported MCLKs
  arm64: dts: rockchip: Assign ES8316 MCLK rate on rk3588-rock-5b

 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts | 2 ++
 sound/soc/codecs/es8316.c                       | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Mark Brown May 30, 2023, 11:36 a.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 09:11:49PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:

> -1.5 dB  |  50-51 %
> -0.0 dB  |  50-51 %

> So it seems the specs are correct, and the problem is the hardware default.

> Is there a better approach to handle this than extending the volume range?

The other option would be to change the value in the register during
probe to one that's in range, that wouldn't stop any existing saved
settings from generating errors but would mean there wouldn't be any new
ones.  Either approach is probably fine.
Cristian Ciocaltea May 30, 2023, 12:52 p.m. UTC | #2
On 5/30/23 14:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 09:11:49PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> 
>> -1.5 dB  |  50-51 %
>> -0.0 dB  |  50-51 %
> 
>> So it seems the specs are correct, and the problem is the hardware default.
> 
>> Is there a better approach to handle this than extending the volume range?
> 
> The other option would be to change the value in the register during
> probe to one that's in range, that wouldn't stop any existing saved
> settings from generating errors but would mean there wouldn't be any new
> ones.  Either approach is probably fine.

Thanks, I will prepare v2 and keep the current approach.
Mark Brown May 30, 2023, 12:55 p.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:52:52PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On 5/30/23 14:36, Mark Brown wrote:

> > The other option would be to change the value in the register during
> > probe to one that's in range, that wouldn't stop any existing saved
> > settings from generating errors but would mean there wouldn't be any new
> > ones.  Either approach is probably fine.

> Thanks, I will prepare v2 and keep the current approach.

OK.  Remember that the TLV will need to be updated to show the two
values having identical effect.