LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
@ 2015-02-04 11:52 Peter Rosin
  2015-02-06 23:09 ` Mark Brown
  2015-02-09  3:09 ` Bo Shen
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-04 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: alsa-devel
  Cc: Peter Rosin, Bo Shen, Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela,
	Takashi Iwai, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

From: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>

When the SSC acts as BCK master, use a ratnum rule to limit
the rate instead of only doing the standard rates. When the SSC
acts as BCK slave, allow any BCK frequency up to within 500ppm
of the SSC master clock, possibly divided by 2, 3 or 6.

Put a cap at 384kHz. Who's /ever/ going to need more than that?

The divider of 2, 3 or 6 is selected based on the Serial Clock Ratio
Considerations section from the SSC documentation:

    The Transmitter and the Receiver can be programmed to operate
    with the clock signals provided on either the TK or RK pins.
    This allows the SSC to support many slave-mode data transfers.
    In this case, the maximum clock speed allowed on the RK pin is:
    - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Receiver Frame Synchro is input
    - Peripheral clock divided by 3 if Receiver Frame Synchro is output
    In addition, the maximum clock speed allowed on the TK pin is:
    - Peripheral clock divided by 6 if Transmit Frame Synchro is input
    - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Transmit Frame Synchro is output

Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
---
 sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c |  113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h |    1 +
 2 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Changes since v1:

- I have checked all Atmel datasheets I could get my hands on (and
  that seemed relevant), and in every instance where they have
  described the SSC, the description have the exact rate limitations
  on the RK and TK pin that I have implemented here.

- Improved the comments.

- Rebased on top of the latest patches from Bo Chen.

One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction. Is
that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...

Cheers,
Peter

diff --git a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
index 379ac2a6ab16..767f65bab25d 100644
--- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
+++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
@@ -187,6 +187,96 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_ssc_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
 }
 
+/*
+ * When the bit clock is input, limit the maximum rate according to the
+ * Serial Clock Ratio Considerations section from the SSC documentation:
+ *
+ *   The Transmitter and the Receiver can be programmed to operate
+ *   with the clock signals provided on either the TK or RK pins.
+ *   This allows the SSC to support many slave-mode data transfers.
+ *   In this case, the maximum clock speed allowed on the RK pin is:
+ *   - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Receiver Frame Synchro is input
+ *   - Peripheral clock divided by 3 if Receiver Frame Synchro is output
+ *   In addition, the maximum clock speed allowed on the TK pin is:
+ *   - Peripheral clock divided by 6 if Transmit Frame Synchro is input
+ *   - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Transmit Frame Synchro is output
+ *
+ * When the bit clock is output, limit the rate according to the
+ * SSC divider restrictions.
+ */
+static int atmel_ssc_hw_rule_rate(struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params,
+				  struct snd_pcm_hw_rule *rule)
+{
+	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = rule->private;
+	struct ssc_device *ssc = ssc_p->ssc;
+	struct snd_interval *i = hw_param_interval(params, rule->var);
+	struct snd_interval t;
+	struct snd_ratnum r = {
+		.den_min = 1,
+		.den_max = 4095,
+		.den_step = 1,
+	};
+	unsigned int num = 0, den = 0;
+	int frame_size;
+	int mck_div = 2;
+	int ret;
+
+	frame_size = snd_soc_params_to_frame_size(params);
+	if (frame_size < 0)
+		return frame_size;
+
+	switch (ssc_p->daifmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
+	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
+		if ((ssc_p->dir_mask & SSC_DIR_MASK_CAPTURE)
+		    && ssc->clk_from_rk_pin)
+			/* Receiver Frame Synchro (i.e. capture)
+			 * is output (format is _CFS) and the RK pin
+			 * is used for input (format is _CBM_).
+			 */
+			mck_div = 3;
+		break;
+
+	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
+		if ((ssc_p->dir_mask & SSC_DIR_MASK_PLAYBACK)
+		    && !ssc->clk_from_rk_pin)
+			/* Transmit Frame Synchro (i.e. playback)
+			 * is input (format is _CFM) and the TK pin
+			 * is used for input (format _CBM_ but not
+			 * using the RK pin).
+			 */
+			mck_div = 6;
+		break;
+	}
+
+	switch (ssc_p->daifmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
+	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS:
+		r.num = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
+
+		ret = snd_interval_ratnum(i, 1, &r, &num, &den);
+		if (ret >= 0 && den && rule->var == SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE) {
+			params->rate_num = num;
+			params->rate_den = den;
+		}
+		break;
+
+	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
+	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
+		t.min = 8000;
+		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
+		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
+		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
+		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
+		t.integer = 0;
+		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
+		break;
+
+	default:
+		ret = -EINVAL;
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return ret;
+}
 
 /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
  * DAI functions
@@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
 	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
 	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
 	int dir, dir_mask;
+	int ret;
 
 	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
 		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR));
@@ -207,6 +298,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
 	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
 	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
 	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
+	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
 
 	/* Reset the SSC to keep it at a clean status */
 	ssc_writel(ssc_p->ssc->regs, CR, SSC_BIT(CR_SWRST));
@@ -219,6 +311,17 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
 		dir_mask = SSC_DIR_MASK_CAPTURE;
 	}
 
+	ret = snd_pcm_hw_rule_add(substream->runtime, 0,
+				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
+				  atmel_ssc_hw_rule_rate,
+				  ssc_p,
+				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_FRAME_BITS,
+				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_CHANNELS, -1);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(dai->dev, "Failed to specify rate rule: %d\n", ret);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
 	dma_params = &ssc_dma_params[dai->id][dir];
 	dma_params->ssc = ssc_p->ssc;
 	dma_params->substream = substream;
@@ -783,8 +886,6 @@ static int atmel_ssc_resume(struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai)
 #  define atmel_ssc_resume	NULL
 #endif /* CONFIG_PM */
 
-#define ATMEL_SSC_RATES (SNDRV_PCM_RATE_8000_96000)
-
 #define ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS (SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S8     | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S16_LE |\
 			  SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S24_LE | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S32_LE)
 
@@ -804,12 +905,16 @@ static struct snd_soc_dai_driver atmel_ssc_dai = {
 		.playback = {
 			.channels_min = 1,
 			.channels_max = 2,
-			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
+			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
+			.rate_min = 8000,
+			.rate_max = 384000,
 			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
 		.capture = {
 			.channels_min = 1,
 			.channels_max = 2,
-			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
+			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
+			.rate_min = 8000,
+			.rate_max = 384000,
 			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
 		.ops = &atmel_ssc_dai_ops,
 };
diff --git a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
index b1f08d511495..80b153857a88 100644
--- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
+++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ struct atmel_ssc_info {
 	unsigned short rcmr_period;
 	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params[2];
 	struct atmel_ssc_state ssc_state;
+	unsigned long mck_rate;
 };
 
 int atmel_ssc_set_audio(int ssc_id);
-- 
1.7.10.4


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-04 11:52 [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates Peter Rosin
@ 2015-02-06 23:09 ` Mark Brown
  2015-02-07 10:51   ` Peter Rosin
  2015-02-09  3:09 ` Bo Shen
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2015-02-06 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Rosin
  Cc: alsa-devel, Peter Rosin, Bo Shen, Liam Girdwood, Jaroslav Kysela,
	Takashi Iwai, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1227 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:

> One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction. Is
> that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...

I don't really get what this is supposed to be protecting against.

> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> +		t.min = 8000;
> +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
> +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
> +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
> +		t.integer = 0;
> +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);

As I understand it this is a straight divider rather than something
that's doing dithering or anything else more fancy.  Given that it seems
as well just to trust the clock rate we've got - we don't do any error
tracking with the clock API (perhaps we should) and for many
applications some degree of divergence from the nominal rate is not
*too* bad for audio systems (for application specific values of "some"
and "too" of course).  If it is just dividers I'm not sure the situation
is really improved materially by knocking off the top frequency.

If we are doing something more fancy than divididing my analysis is off
base of course.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-06 23:09 ` Mark Brown
@ 2015-02-07 10:51   ` Peter Rosin
  2015-02-09  3:06     ` Bo Shen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-07 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mark Brown, Peter Rosin
  Cc: alsa-devel, Bo Shen, Liam Girdwood, Jaroslav Kysela,
	Takashi Iwai, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 
> > One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction. Is
> > that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
> 
> I don't really get what this is supposed to be protecting against.
> 
> > +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> > +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> > +		t.min = 8000;
> > +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> > +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
> > +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
> > +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
> > +		t.integer = 0;
> > +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
> 
> As I understand it this is a straight divider rather than something that's doing
> dithering or anything else more fancy.  Given that it seems as well just to
> trust the clock rate we've got - we don't do any error tracking with the clock
> API (perhaps we should) and for many applications some degree of
> divergence from the nominal rate is not
> *too* bad for audio systems (for application specific values of "some"
> and "too" of course).  If it is just dividers I'm not sure the situation is really
> improved materially by knocking off the top frequency.
> 
> If we are doing something more fancy than divididing my analysis is off base
> of course.

I'm thinking that the SSC samples the selected BCK pin using the (possibly
divided) peripheral clock. Getting too near the theoretical rate limit would
be bad, if these two independent clocks drift the wrong way. At least that
is my take on it, but I don't know the internal workings of the SSC, so...

I was hoping that someone from Atmel could chime in? Maybe I'm totally
off base, and the SSC is doing this completely differently?

In our application, we're not near the limit. Therefore, it really doesn't
matter much to us.

Should I resend w/o the 500ppm deduction?

Cheers,
Peter


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-07 10:51   ` Peter Rosin
@ 2015-02-09  3:06     ` Bo Shen
  2015-02-09  7:35       ` Peter Rosin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bo Shen @ 2015-02-09  3:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Rosin, Mark Brown, Peter Rosin
  Cc: alsa-devel, Liam Girdwood, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Hi Peter,

On 02/07/2015 06:51 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>
>>> One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction. Is
>>> that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
>>
>> I don't really get what this is supposed to be protecting against.
>>
>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
>>> +		t.min = 8000;
>>> +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
>>> +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
>>> +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
>>> +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
>>> +		t.integer = 0;
>>> +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
>>
>> As I understand it this is a straight divider rather than something that's doing
>> dithering or anything else more fancy.  Given that it seems as well just to
>> trust the clock rate we've got - we don't do any error tracking with the clock
>> API (perhaps we should) and for many applications some degree of
>> divergence from the nominal rate is not
>> *too* bad for audio systems (for application specific values of "some"
>> and "too" of course).  If it is just dividers I'm not sure the situation is really
>> improved materially by knocking off the top frequency.
>>
>> If we are doing something more fancy than divididing my analysis is off base
>> of course.
>
> I'm thinking that the SSC samples the selected BCK pin using the (possibly
> divided) peripheral clock. Getting too near the theoretical rate limit would
> be bad, if these two independent clocks drift the wrong way. At least that
> is my take on it, but I don't know the internal workings of the SSC, so...
>
> I was hoping that someone from Atmel could chime in? Maybe I'm totally

Sorry for late response.

> off base, and the SSC is doing this completely differently?

What you mean here? I am not sure I fully understand.

> In our application, we're not near the limit. Therefore, it really doesn't
> matter much to us.
>
> Should I resend w/o the 500ppm deduction?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>

Best Regards,
Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-04 11:52 [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates Peter Rosin
  2015-02-06 23:09 ` Mark Brown
@ 2015-02-09  3:09 ` Bo Shen
  2015-02-09  8:09   ` Peter Rosin
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bo Shen @ 2015-02-09  3:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Peter Rosin, Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela,
	Takashi Iwai, linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Hi Peter,

On 02/04/2015 07:52 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> From: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
>
> When the SSC acts as BCK master, use a ratnum rule to limit
> the rate instead of only doing the standard rates. When the SSC
> acts as BCK slave, allow any BCK frequency up to within 500ppm
> of the SSC master clock, possibly divided by 2, 3 or 6.
>
> Put a cap at 384kHz. Who's /ever/ going to need more than that?
>
> The divider of 2, 3 or 6 is selected based on the Serial Clock Ratio
> Considerations section from the SSC documentation:
>
>      The Transmitter and the Receiver can be programmed to operate
>      with the clock signals provided on either the TK or RK pins.
>      This allows the SSC to support many slave-mode data transfers.
>      In this case, the maximum clock speed allowed on the RK pin is:
>      - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Receiver Frame Synchro is input
>      - Peripheral clock divided by 3 if Receiver Frame Synchro is output
>      In addition, the maximum clock speed allowed on the TK pin is:
>      - Peripheral clock divided by 6 if Transmit Frame Synchro is input
>      - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Transmit Frame Synchro is output
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> ---
>   sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c |  113 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h |    1 +
>   2 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Changes since v1:
>
> - I have checked all Atmel datasheets I could get my hands on (and
>    that seemed relevant), and in every instance where they have
>    described the SSC, the description have the exact rate limitations
>    on the RK and TK pin that I have implemented here.
>
> - Improved the comments.
>
> - Rebased on top of the latest patches from Bo Chen.
>
> One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction. Is
> that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
> index 379ac2a6ab16..767f65bab25d 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
> @@ -187,6 +187,96 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_ssc_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
>   	return IRQ_HANDLED;
>   }
>
> +/*
> + * When the bit clock is input, limit the maximum rate according to the
> + * Serial Clock Ratio Considerations section from the SSC documentation:
> + *
> + *   The Transmitter and the Receiver can be programmed to operate
> + *   with the clock signals provided on either the TK or RK pins.
> + *   This allows the SSC to support many slave-mode data transfers.
> + *   In this case, the maximum clock speed allowed on the RK pin is:
> + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Receiver Frame Synchro is input
> + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 3 if Receiver Frame Synchro is output
> + *   In addition, the maximum clock speed allowed on the TK pin is:
> + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 6 if Transmit Frame Synchro is input
> + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Transmit Frame Synchro is output
> + *
> + * When the bit clock is output, limit the rate according to the
> + * SSC divider restrictions.
> + */
> +static int atmel_ssc_hw_rule_rate(struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params,
> +				  struct snd_pcm_hw_rule *rule)
> +{
> +	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = rule->private;
> +	struct ssc_device *ssc = ssc_p->ssc;
> +	struct snd_interval *i = hw_param_interval(params, rule->var);
> +	struct snd_interval t;
> +	struct snd_ratnum r = {
> +		.den_min = 1,
> +		.den_max = 4095,
> +		.den_step = 1,
> +	};
> +	unsigned int num = 0, den = 0;
> +	int frame_size;
> +	int mck_div = 2;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	frame_size = snd_soc_params_to_frame_size(params);
> +	if (frame_size < 0)
> +		return frame_size;
> +
> +	switch (ssc_p->daifmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> +		if ((ssc_p->dir_mask & SSC_DIR_MASK_CAPTURE)
> +		    && ssc->clk_from_rk_pin)
> +			/* Receiver Frame Synchro (i.e. capture)
> +			 * is output (format is _CFS) and the RK pin
> +			 * is used for input (format is _CBM_).
> +			 */
> +			mck_div = 3;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> +		if ((ssc_p->dir_mask & SSC_DIR_MASK_PLAYBACK)
> +		    && !ssc->clk_from_rk_pin)
> +			/* Transmit Frame Synchro (i.e. playback)
> +			 * is input (format is _CFM) and the TK pin
> +			 * is used for input (format _CBM_ but not
> +			 * using the RK pin).
> +			 */
> +			mck_div = 6;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
> +	switch (ssc_p->daifmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS:
> +		r.num = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> +
> +		ret = snd_interval_ratnum(i, 1, &r, &num, &den);
> +		if (ret >= 0 && den && rule->var == SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE) {
> +			params->rate_num = num;
> +			params->rate_den = den;
> +		}
> +		break;
> +
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> +		t.min = 8000;
> +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
> +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
> +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
> +		t.integer = 0;
> +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
> +		break;
> +
> +	default:
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
>
>   /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
>    * DAI functions
> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>   	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
>   	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
>   	int dir, dir_mask;
> +	int ret;
>
>   	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
>   		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR));
> @@ -207,6 +298,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>   	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
>   	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
>   	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
> +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;

Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?

>   	/* Reset the SSC to keep it at a clean status */
>   	ssc_writel(ssc_p->ssc->regs, CR, SSC_BIT(CR_SWRST));
> @@ -219,6 +311,17 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>   		dir_mask = SSC_DIR_MASK_CAPTURE;
>   	}
>
> +	ret = snd_pcm_hw_rule_add(substream->runtime, 0,
> +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> +				  atmel_ssc_hw_rule_rate,
> +				  ssc_p,
> +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_FRAME_BITS,
> +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_CHANNELS, -1);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(dai->dev, "Failed to specify rate rule: %d\n", ret);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
>   	dma_params = &ssc_dma_params[dai->id][dir];
>   	dma_params->ssc = ssc_p->ssc;
>   	dma_params->substream = substream;
> @@ -783,8 +886,6 @@ static int atmel_ssc_resume(struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai)
>   #  define atmel_ssc_resume	NULL
>   #endif /* CONFIG_PM */
>
> -#define ATMEL_SSC_RATES (SNDRV_PCM_RATE_8000_96000)
> -
>   #define ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS (SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S8     | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S16_LE |\
>   			  SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S24_LE | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S32_LE)
>
> @@ -804,12 +905,16 @@ static struct snd_soc_dai_driver atmel_ssc_dai = {
>   		.playback = {
>   			.channels_min = 1,
>   			.channels_max = 2,
> -			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
> +			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
> +			.rate_min = 8000,
> +			.rate_max = 384000,

Why this need to be changed? Do you mean in your application, the rates 
will exceed 96000?

>   			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
>   		.capture = {
>   			.channels_min = 1,
>   			.channels_max = 2,
> -			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
> +			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
> +			.rate_min = 8000,
> +			.rate_max = 384000,

Ditto.

>   			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
>   		.ops = &atmel_ssc_dai_ops,
>   };
> diff --git a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
> index b1f08d511495..80b153857a88 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
> +++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
> @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ struct atmel_ssc_info {
>   	unsigned short rcmr_period;
>   	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params[2];
>   	struct atmel_ssc_state ssc_state;
> +	unsigned long mck_rate;
>   };
>
>   int atmel_ssc_set_audio(int ssc_id);
>

Best Regards,
Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  3:06     ` Bo Shen
@ 2015-02-09  7:35       ` Peter Rosin
  2015-02-09  8:00         ` Bo Shen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-09  7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bo Shen, Mark Brown, Peter Rosin
  Cc: alsa-devel, Liam Girdwood, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Peter,

Hi!

> On 02/07/2015 06:51 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>
> >>> One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction.
> >>> Is that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
> >>
> >> I don't really get what this is supposed to be protecting against.
> >>
> >>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> >>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> >>> +		t.min = 8000;
> >>> +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> >>> +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
> >>> +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
> >>> +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
> >>> +		t.integer = 0;
> >>> +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
> >>
> >> As I understand it this is a straight divider rather than something
> >> that's doing dithering or anything else more fancy.  Given that it
> >> seems as well just to trust the clock rate we've got - we don't do
> >> any error tracking with the clock API (perhaps we should) and for
> >> many applications some degree of divergence from the nominal rate is
> >> not
> >> *too* bad for audio systems (for application specific values of "some"
> >> and "too" of course).  If it is just dividers I'm not sure the
> >> situation is really improved materially by knocking off the top frequency.
> >>
> >> If we are doing something more fancy than divididing my analysis is
> >> off base of course.
> >
> > I'm thinking that the SSC samples the selected BCK pin using the
> > (possibly
> > divided) peripheral clock. Getting too near the theoretical rate limit
> > would be bad, if these two independent clocks drift the wrong way. At
> > least that is my take on it, but I don't know the internal workings of the SSC, so...
> >
> > I was hoping that someone from Atmel could chime in? Maybe I'm totally
> 
> Sorry for late response.

No problem!

> > off base, and the SSC is doing this completely differently?
> 
> What you mean here? I am not sure I fully understand.

The SSC spec list a maximum rate (which varies with the direction
of various signals, ignoring that for the sake of this explanation). Lets
assume that this maximum rate is 11MHz, derived from the peripheral
clock which might be 66MHz. If you then try to input an 11MHz signal
derived from some unrelated xtal you might think it should work. My
theory was that the rate limit would be broken if the peripheral clock
wasn't really 66MHz, but instead a few ppm lower than nominal, and
the unrelated xtal was a few ppm higher than nominal.

If this matters or not depends on how the SSC is implemented.

There might be other reasons for not caring all that much about
this fringe case, and just trust the nominal rates and limits.

> > In our application, we're not near the limit. Therefore, it really
> > doesn't matter much to us.
> >
> > Should I resend w/o the 500ppm deduction?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> 
> Best Regards,
> Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  7:35       ` Peter Rosin
@ 2015-02-09  8:00         ` Bo Shen
  2015-02-09  8:17           ` Peter Rosin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bo Shen @ 2015-02-09  8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Rosin, Mark Brown, Peter Rosin
  Cc: alsa-devel, Liam Girdwood, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Hi Peter,

On 02/09/2015 03:35 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Bo Shen wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>
> Hi!
>
>> On 02/07/2015 06:51 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction.
>>>>> Is that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
>>>>
>>>> I don't really get what this is supposed to be protecting against.
>>>>
>>>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
>>>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
>>>>> +		t.min = 8000;
>>>>> +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
>>>>> +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
>>>>> +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
>>>>> +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
>>>>> +		t.integer = 0;
>>>>> +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it this is a straight divider rather than something
>>>> that's doing dithering or anything else more fancy.  Given that it
>>>> seems as well just to trust the clock rate we've got - we don't do
>>>> any error tracking with the clock API (perhaps we should) and for
>>>> many applications some degree of divergence from the nominal rate is
>>>> not
>>>> *too* bad for audio systems (for application specific values of "some"
>>>> and "too" of course).  If it is just dividers I'm not sure the
>>>> situation is really improved materially by knocking off the top frequency.
>>>>
>>>> If we are doing something more fancy than divididing my analysis is
>>>> off base of course.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that the SSC samples the selected BCK pin using the
>>> (possibly
>>> divided) peripheral clock. Getting too near the theoretical rate limit
>>> would be bad, if these two independent clocks drift the wrong way. At
>>> least that is my take on it, but I don't know the internal workings of the SSC, so...
>>>
>>> I was hoping that someone from Atmel could chime in? Maybe I'm totally
>>
>> Sorry for late response.
>
> No problem!
>
>>> off base, and the SSC is doing this completely differently?
>>
>> What you mean here? I am not sure I fully understand.
>
> The SSC spec list a maximum rate (which varies with the direction
> of various signals, ignoring that for the sake of this explanation). Lets
> assume that this maximum rate is 11MHz, derived from the peripheral
> clock which might be 66MHz. If you then try to input an 11MHz signal
> derived from some unrelated xtal you might think it should work. My
> theory was that the rate limit would be broken if the peripheral clock
> wasn't really 66MHz, but instead a few ppm lower than nominal, and
> the unrelated xtal was a few ppm higher than nominal.
>
> If this matters or not depends on how the SSC is implemented.

This is to let the user to know the clock limitation, am I right?

And at the same time deal with the un-precise clock which come to SSC? 
If this case, I think we should trust the clock come to SSC.

> There might be other reasons for not caring all that much about
> this fringe case, and just trust the nominal rates and limits.
>
>>> In our application, we're not near the limit. Therefore, it really
>>> doesn't matter much to us.
>>>
>>> Should I resend w/o the 500ppm deduction?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Bo Shen

Best Regards,
Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  3:09 ` Bo Shen
@ 2015-02-09  8:09   ` Peter Rosin
  2015-02-09  8:37     ` Bo Shen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-09  8:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bo Shen, Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Peter,

Hi!

> On 02/04/2015 07:52 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > From: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> >
> > When the SSC acts as BCK master, use a ratnum rule to limit the rate
> > instead of only doing the standard rates. When the SSC acts as BCK
> > slave, allow any BCK frequency up to within 500ppm of the SSC master
> > clock, possibly divided by 2, 3 or 6.
> >
> > Put a cap at 384kHz. Who's /ever/ going to need more than that?
> >
> > The divider of 2, 3 or 6 is selected based on the Serial Clock Ratio
> > Considerations section from the SSC documentation:
> >
> >      The Transmitter and the Receiver can be programmed to operate
> >      with the clock signals provided on either the TK or RK pins.
> >      This allows the SSC to support many slave-mode data transfers.
> >      In this case, the maximum clock speed allowed on the RK pin is:
> >      - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Receiver Frame Synchro is input
> >      - Peripheral clock divided by 3 if Receiver Frame Synchro is output
> >      In addition, the maximum clock speed allowed on the TK pin is:
> >      - Peripheral clock divided by 6 if Transmit Frame Synchro is input
> >      - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Transmit Frame Synchro is
> > output
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
> > ---
> >   sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c |  113
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h |    1 +
> >   2 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> >
> > - I have checked all Atmel datasheets I could get my hands on (and
> >    that seemed relevant), and in every instance where they have
> >    described the SSC, the description have the exact rate limitations
> >    on the RK and TK pin that I have implemented here.
> >
> > - Improved the comments.
> >
> > - Rebased on top of the latest patches from Bo Chen.
> >
> > One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction. Is
> > that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
> > b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c index 379ac2a6ab16..767f65bab25d
> > 100644
> > --- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
> > +++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.c
> > @@ -187,6 +187,96 @@ static irqreturn_t atmel_ssc_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >   	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> >   }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * When the bit clock is input, limit the maximum rate according to
> > +the
> > + * Serial Clock Ratio Considerations section from the SSC documentation:
> > + *
> > + *   The Transmitter and the Receiver can be programmed to operate
> > + *   with the clock signals provided on either the TK or RK pins.
> > + *   This allows the SSC to support many slave-mode data transfers.
> > + *   In this case, the maximum clock speed allowed on the RK pin is:
> > + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Receiver Frame Synchro is input
> > + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 3 if Receiver Frame Synchro is output
> > + *   In addition, the maximum clock speed allowed on the TK pin is:
> > + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 6 if Transmit Frame Synchro is input
> > + *   - Peripheral clock divided by 2 if Transmit Frame Synchro is output
> > + *
> > + * When the bit clock is output, limit the rate according to the
> > + * SSC divider restrictions.
> > + */
> > +static int atmel_ssc_hw_rule_rate(struct snd_pcm_hw_params *params,
> > +				  struct snd_pcm_hw_rule *rule)
> > +{
> > +	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = rule->private;
> > +	struct ssc_device *ssc = ssc_p->ssc;
> > +	struct snd_interval *i = hw_param_interval(params, rule->var);
> > +	struct snd_interval t;
> > +	struct snd_ratnum r = {
> > +		.den_min = 1,
> > +		.den_max = 4095,
> > +		.den_step = 1,
> > +	};
> > +	unsigned int num = 0, den = 0;
> > +	int frame_size;
> > +	int mck_div = 2;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	frame_size = snd_soc_params_to_frame_size(params);
> > +	if (frame_size < 0)
> > +		return frame_size;
> > +
> > +	switch (ssc_p->daifmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
> > +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> > +		if ((ssc_p->dir_mask & SSC_DIR_MASK_CAPTURE)
> > +		    && ssc->clk_from_rk_pin)
> > +			/* Receiver Frame Synchro (i.e. capture)
> > +			 * is output (format is _CFS) and the RK pin
> > +			 * is used for input (format is _CBM_).
> > +			 */
> > +			mck_div = 3;
> > +		break;
> > +
> > +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> > +		if ((ssc_p->dir_mask & SSC_DIR_MASK_PLAYBACK)
> > +		    && !ssc->clk_from_rk_pin)
> > +			/* Transmit Frame Synchro (i.e. playback)
> > +			 * is input (format is _CFM) and the TK pin
> > +			 * is used for input (format _CBM_ but not
> > +			 * using the RK pin).
> > +			 */
> > +			mck_div = 6;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	switch (ssc_p->daifmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
> > +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS:
> > +		r.num = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> > +
> > +		ret = snd_interval_ratnum(i, 1, &r, &num, &den);
> > +		if (ret >= 0 && den && rule->var == SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE) {
> > +			params->rate_num = num;
> > +			params->rate_den = den;
> > +		}
> > +		break;
> > +
> > +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> > +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> > +		t.min = 8000;
> > +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> > +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
> > +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
> > +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
> > +		t.integer = 0;
> > +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
> > +		break;
> > +
> > +	default:
> > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> >
> >   /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
> >    * DAI functions
> > @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >   	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
> >   	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
> >   	int dir, dir_mask;
> > +	int ret;
> >
> >   	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
> >   		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR));
> > @@ -207,6 +298,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >   	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
> >   	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
> >   	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
> > +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
> 
> Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?

What did you have in mind? Add another clock to the ssc node in the
device tree?

IIUC, the device tree (at least normally) has the ssc clk as the peripheral
clock divided by 2, but the ssc specifies (when capturing in the CBM/CFS
case) the rate limit as the peripheral clock divided by 3 (i.e. ssc clk / 1.5).
Since the SSC spec expresses the rate limit in terms of the peripheral
clock, this was what I came up with. I didn't want to require dt changes...

> >   	/* Reset the SSC to keep it at a clean status */
> >   	ssc_writel(ssc_p->ssc->regs, CR, SSC_BIT(CR_SWRST)); @@ -219,6
> > +311,17 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >   		dir_mask = SSC_DIR_MASK_CAPTURE;
> >   	}
> >
> > +	ret = snd_pcm_hw_rule_add(substream->runtime, 0,
> > +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
> > +				  atmel_ssc_hw_rule_rate,
> > +				  ssc_p,
> > +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_FRAME_BITS,
> > +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_CHANNELS, -1);
> > +	if (ret < 0) {
> > +		dev_err(dai->dev, "Failed to specify rate rule: %d\n", ret);
> > +		return ret;
> > +	}
> > +
> >   	dma_params = &ssc_dma_params[dai->id][dir];
> >   	dma_params->ssc = ssc_p->ssc;
> >   	dma_params->substream = substream;
> > @@ -783,8 +886,6 @@ static int atmel_ssc_resume(struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai)
> >   #  define atmel_ssc_resume	NULL
> >   #endif /* CONFIG_PM */
> >
> > -#define ATMEL_SSC_RATES (SNDRV_PCM_RATE_8000_96000)
> > -
> >   #define ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS (SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S8     | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S16_LE |\
> >   			  SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S24_LE | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S32_LE)
> >
> > @@ -804,12 +905,16 @@ static struct snd_soc_dai_driver atmel_ssc_dai = {
> >   		.playback = {
> >   			.channels_min = 1,
> >   			.channels_max = 2,
> > -			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
> > +			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
> > +			.rate_min = 8000,
> > +			.rate_max = 384000,
> 
> Why this need to be changed? Do you mean in your application, the rates will
> exceed 96000?

Yes, we have designed for 250kHz and this works just fine. Why limit
to 96kHz?

Our application isn't audio, we're generating an FM subcarrier (DARC)
and need to output signals up to about 100kHz, give or take a few kHz
depending on how pedantic you are. Basically, we need a sampling rate
above 208kHz or so (DACs will normally not be usable all the way up to
the Nyquist frequency), or things are simply not usable for us.

> >   			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
> >   		.capture = {
> >   			.channels_min = 1,
> >   			.channels_max = 2,
> > -			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
> > +			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
> > +			.rate_min = 8000,
> > +			.rate_max = 384000,
> 
> Ditto.

We are not capturing in our application, I changed this for symmetry.

Best regards,
Peter

> >   			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
> >   		.ops = &atmel_ssc_dai_ops,
> >   };
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
> > b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h index b1f08d511495..80b153857a88
> > 100644
> > --- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
> > +++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
> > @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ struct atmel_ssc_info {
> >   	unsigned short rcmr_period;
> >   	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params[2];
> >   	struct atmel_ssc_state ssc_state;
> > +	unsigned long mck_rate;
> >   };
> >
> >   int atmel_ssc_set_audio(int ssc_id);
> >
> 
> Best Regards,
> Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  8:00         ` Bo Shen
@ 2015-02-09  8:17           ` Peter Rosin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-09  8:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bo Shen, Mark Brown, Peter Rosin
  Cc: alsa-devel, Liam Girdwood, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 02/09/2015 03:35 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > Bo Shen wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> >> On 02/07/2015 06:51 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>> Mark Brown wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:52:25PM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> One thing remains a bit unclear, and that is the 500ppm deduction.
> >>>>> Is that really warranted? The number was just pulled out of my hat...
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't really get what this is supposed to be protecting against.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
> >>>>> +	case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
> >>>>> +		t.min = 8000;
> >>>>> +		t.max = ssc_p->mck_rate / mck_div / frame_size;
> >>>>> +		/* Take away 500ppm, just to be on the safe side. */
> >>>>> +		t.max -= t.max / 2000;
> >>>>> +		t.openmin = t.openmax = 0;
> >>>>> +		t.integer = 0;
> >>>>> +		ret = snd_interval_refine(i, &t);
> >>>>
> >>>> As I understand it this is a straight divider rather than something
> >>>> that's doing dithering or anything else more fancy.  Given that it
> >>>> seems as well just to trust the clock rate we've got - we don't do
> >>>> any error tracking with the clock API (perhaps we should) and for
> >>>> many applications some degree of divergence from the nominal rate
> >>>> is not
> >>>> *too* bad for audio systems (for application specific values of "some"
> >>>> and "too" of course).  If it is just dividers I'm not sure the
> >>>> situation is really improved materially by knocking off the top frequency.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we are doing something more fancy than divididing my analysis is
> >>>> off base of course.
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking that the SSC samples the selected BCK pin using the
> >>> (possibly
> >>> divided) peripheral clock. Getting too near the theoretical rate
> >>> limit would be bad, if these two independent clocks drift the wrong
> >>> way. At least that is my take on it, but I don't know the internal workings of the SSC, so...
> >>>
> >>> I was hoping that someone from Atmel could chime in? Maybe I'm
> >>> totally
> >>
> >> Sorry for late response.
> >
> > No problem!
> >
> >>> off base, and the SSC is doing this completely differently?
> >>
> >> What you mean here? I am not sure I fully understand.
> >
> > The SSC spec list a maximum rate (which varies with the direction of
> > various signals, ignoring that for the sake of this explanation). Lets
> > assume that this maximum rate is 11MHz, derived from the peripheral
> > clock which might be 66MHz. If you then try to input an 11MHz signal
> > derived from some unrelated xtal you might think it should work. My
> > theory was that the rate limit would be broken if the peripheral clock
> > wasn't really 66MHz, but instead a few ppm lower than nominal, and the
> > unrelated xtal was a few ppm higher than nominal.
> >
> > If this matters or not depends on how the SSC is implemented.
> 
> This is to let the user to know the clock limitation, am I right?

Yes, sort of, to prevent the user from even attempting to go too
near the nominal limit.

> And at the same time deal with the un-precise clock which come to SSC?
> If this case, I think we should trust the clock come to SSC.

Ok, I'll just kill the 500ppm thing for the next round. I'll wait a bit
for the discussion in the other branch to fade out though. :-)

Cheers,
Peter

> > There might be other reasons for not caring all that much about this
> > fringe case, and just trust the nominal rates and limits.
> >
> >>> In our application, we're not near the limit. Therefore, it really
> >>> doesn't matter much to us.
> >>>
> >>> Should I resend w/o the 500ppm deduction?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Bo Shen
> 
> Best Regards,
> Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  8:09   ` Peter Rosin
@ 2015-02-09  8:37     ` Bo Shen
  2015-02-09  9:07       ` Peter Rosin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bo Shen @ 2015-02-09  8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Rosin, Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Hi Peter,

On 02/09/2015 04:09 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:

[Snip]

>>>
>>>    /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
>>>     * DAI functions
>>> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>>    	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
>>>    	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
>>>    	int dir, dir_mask;
>>> +	int ret;
>>>
>>>    	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
>>>    		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR));
>>> @@ -207,6 +298,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>>    	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
>>>    	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
>>>    	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
>>> +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
>>
>> Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?
>
> What did you have in mind? Add another clock to the ssc node in the
> device tree?
>
> IIUC, the device tree (at least normally) has the ssc clk as the peripheral
> clock divided by 2, but the ssc specifies (when capturing in the CBM/CFS
> case) the rate limit as the peripheral clock divided by 3 (i.e. ssc clk / 1.5).
> Since the SSC spec expresses the rate limit in terms of the peripheral
> clock, this was what I came up with. I didn't want to require dt changes...

You make a misunderstand for the mck for ssc peripheral. The mck here is 
not the system mck, it only related with the ssc, it is the PMC output. 
For example, in device tree, the ssc clock divided by 2, then the pmc 
output for ssc is "system mck / 2", so the ssc mck is "system mck / 2". 
If divided by 4, then the ssc mck is "system / 4"

>>>    	/* Reset the SSC to keep it at a clean status */
>>>    	ssc_writel(ssc_p->ssc->regs, CR, SSC_BIT(CR_SWRST)); @@ -219,6
>>> +311,17 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>>    		dir_mask = SSC_DIR_MASK_CAPTURE;
>>>    	}
>>>
>>> +	ret = snd_pcm_hw_rule_add(substream->runtime, 0,
>>> +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_RATE,
>>> +				  atmel_ssc_hw_rule_rate,
>>> +				  ssc_p,
>>> +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_FRAME_BITS,
>>> +				  SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_CHANNELS, -1);
>>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>>> +		dev_err(dai->dev, "Failed to specify rate rule: %d\n", ret);
>>> +		return ret;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>    	dma_params = &ssc_dma_params[dai->id][dir];
>>>    	dma_params->ssc = ssc_p->ssc;
>>>    	dma_params->substream = substream;
>>> @@ -783,8 +886,6 @@ static int atmel_ssc_resume(struct snd_soc_dai *cpu_dai)
>>>    #  define atmel_ssc_resume	NULL
>>>    #endif /* CONFIG_PM */
>>>
>>> -#define ATMEL_SSC_RATES (SNDRV_PCM_RATE_8000_96000)
>>> -
>>>    #define ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS (SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S8     | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S16_LE |\
>>>    			  SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S24_LE | SNDRV_PCM_FMTBIT_S32_LE)
>>>
>>> @@ -804,12 +905,16 @@ static struct snd_soc_dai_driver atmel_ssc_dai = {
>>>    		.playback = {
>>>    			.channels_min = 1,
>>>    			.channels_max = 2,
>>> -			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
>>> +			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
>>> +			.rate_min = 8000,
>>> +			.rate_max = 384000,
>>
>> Why this need to be changed? Do you mean in your application, the rates will
>> exceed 96000?
>
> Yes, we have designed for 250kHz and this works just fine. Why limit
> to 96kHz?
>
> Our application isn't audio, we're generating an FM subcarrier (DARC)
> and need to output signals up to about 100kHz, give or take a few kHz
> depending on how pedantic you are. Basically, we need a sampling rate
> above 208kHz or so (DACs will normally not be usable all the way up to
> the Nyquist frequency), or things are simply not usable for us.

For me, I should consider this is an another application for SSC, but 
not audio, however similar to audio. And as you specified, it is tested 
OK. So, no objection here, then.

>>>    			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
>>>    		.capture = {
>>>    			.channels_min = 1,
>>>    			.channels_max = 2,
>>> -			.rates = ATMEL_SSC_RATES,
>>> +			.rates = SNDRV_PCM_RATE_CONTINUOUS,
>>> +			.rate_min = 8000,
>>> +			.rate_max = 384000,
>>
>> Ditto.
>
> We are not capturing in our application, I changed this for symmetry.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
>>>    			.formats = ATMEL_SSC_FORMATS,},
>>>    		.ops = &atmel_ssc_dai_ops,
>>>    };
>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
>>> b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h index b1f08d511495..80b153857a88
>>> 100644
>>> --- a/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/atmel/atmel_ssc_dai.h
>>> @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ struct atmel_ssc_info {
>>>    	unsigned short rcmr_period;
>>>    	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params[2];
>>>    	struct atmel_ssc_state ssc_state;
>>> +	unsigned long mck_rate;
>>>    };
>>>
>>>    int atmel_ssc_set_audio(int ssc_id);
>>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Bo Shen

Best Regards,
Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  8:37     ` Bo Shen
@ 2015-02-09  9:07       ` Peter Rosin
  2015-02-09  9:41         ` Bo Shen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-09  9:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bo Shen, Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 02/09/2015 04:09 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> 
> [Snip]
> 
> >>>
> >>>    /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
> >>>     * DAI functions
> >>> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >>>    	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
> >>>    	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
> >>>    	int dir, dir_mask;
> >>> +	int ret;
> >>>
> >>>    	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
> >>>    		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR)); @@ -207,6 +298,7 @@
> static
> >>> int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >>>    	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
> >>>    	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
> >>>    	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
> >>> +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
> >>
> >> Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?
> >
> > What did you have in mind? Add another clock to the ssc node in the
> > device tree?
> >
> > IIUC, the device tree (at least normally) has the ssc clk as the
> > peripheral clock divided by 2, but the ssc specifies (when capturing
> > in the CBM/CFS
> > case) the rate limit as the peripheral clock divided by 3 (i.e. ssc clk / 1.5).
> > Since the SSC spec expresses the rate limit in terms of the peripheral
> > clock, this was what I came up with. I didn't want to require dt changes...
> 
> You make a misunderstand for the mck for ssc peripheral. The mck here is
> not the system mck, it only related with the ssc, it is the PMC output.
> For example, in device tree, the ssc clock divided by 2, then the pmc output
> for ssc is "system mck / 2", so the ssc mck is "system mck / 2".
> If divided by 4, then the ssc mck is "system / 4"

I think the reason for my misunderstanding might be that in the
3.10-at91 tree, the ssc clk is twice the rate compared to what it is
in the 3.18-at91 tree. This made me assume that the ssc clk had
been changed to mean the rate after the fixed divider by two that
is activated as soon as the ssc clock divider (given by SSC_CMR) is
activated, and that it was a simple matter of multiplying by two to
get to the MCK rate. I further assumed that "Master Clock" in the
"Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section was this MCK. Maybe
the mistake was to involve the peripheral clock at all?

Ok, so I may have misunderstood, but in that case what does that
mean in terms of finding the "Master Clock" rate that is mentioned
in the "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section? Is it perhaps the
rate of the parent clock of the given ssc clk? Or, given the above
explanation, is it correct to simply multiply by two as I have done?

[snip]

Cheers,
Peter

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  9:07       ` Peter Rosin
@ 2015-02-09  9:41         ` Bo Shen
  2015-02-09 10:25           ` Peter Rosin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bo Shen @ 2015-02-09  9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Rosin, Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Hi Peter,

On 02/09/2015 05:07 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Bo Shen wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 02/09/2015 04:09 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
>>>>>      * DAI functions
>>>>> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct
>> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>>>>     	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
>>>>>     	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
>>>>>     	int dir, dir_mask;
>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>
>>>>>     	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
>>>>>     		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR)); @@ -207,6 +298,7 @@
>> static
>>>>> int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>>>>     	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
>>>>>     	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
>>>>>     	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
>>>>> +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
>>>>
>>>> Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?
>>>
>>> What did you have in mind? Add another clock to the ssc node in the
>>> device tree?
>>>
>>> IIUC, the device tree (at least normally) has the ssc clk as the
>>> peripheral clock divided by 2, but the ssc specifies (when capturing
>>> in the CBM/CFS
>>> case) the rate limit as the peripheral clock divided by 3 (i.e. ssc clk / 1.5).
>>> Since the SSC spec expresses the rate limit in terms of the peripheral
>>> clock, this was what I came up with. I didn't want to require dt changes...
>>
>> You make a misunderstand for the mck for ssc peripheral. The mck here is
>> not the system mck, it only related with the ssc, it is the PMC output.
>> For example, in device tree, the ssc clock divided by 2, then the pmc output
>> for ssc is "system mck / 2", so the ssc mck is "system mck / 2".
>> If divided by 4, then the ssc mck is "system / 4"
>
> I think the reason for my misunderstanding might be that in the
> 3.10-at91 tree, the ssc clk is twice the rate compared to what it is
> in the 3.18-at91 tree. This made me assume that the ssc clk had

I think maybe you didn't use the latest linux-3.10-at91 code. In that 
code, we also divided by 2 in device tree.

> been changed to mean the rate after the fixed divider by two that
> is activated as soon as the ssc clock divider (given by SSC_CMR) is
> activated, and that it was a simple matter of multiplying by two to
> get to the MCK rate. I further assumed that "Master Clock" in the
> "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section was this MCK. Maybe
> the mistake was to involve the peripheral clock at all?
>
> Ok, so I may have misunderstood, but in that case what does that
> mean in terms of finding the "Master Clock" rate that is mentioned
> in the "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section? Is it perhaps the
> rate of the parent clock of the given ssc clk? Or, given the above
> explanation, is it correct to simply multiply by two as I have done?

The "Master Clock" actually is the same as "Peripheral clock".

Thanks for your information, I will send this to our datasheet team to 
update this part.

> [snip]
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>

Best Regards,
Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09  9:41         ` Bo Shen
@ 2015-02-09 10:25           ` Peter Rosin
  2015-02-09 10:37             ` Bo Shen
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-09 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bo Shen, Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 

Hi!

> On 02/09/2015 05:07 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > Bo Shen wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> On 02/09/2015 04:09 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >>
> >> [Snip]
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
> >>>>>      * DAI functions
> >>>>> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct
> >> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >>>>>     	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
> >>>>>     	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
> >>>>>     	int dir, dir_mask;
> >>>>> +	int ret;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
> >>>>>     		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR)); @@ -207,6 +298,7
> @@
> >> static
> >>>>> int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >>>>>     	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
> >>>>>     	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
> >>>>>     	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
> >>>>> +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
> >>>>
> >>>> Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?
> >>>
> >>> What did you have in mind? Add another clock to the ssc node in the
> >>> device tree?
> >>>
> >>> IIUC, the device tree (at least normally) has the ssc clk as the
> >>> peripheral clock divided by 2, but the ssc specifies (when capturing
> >>> in the CBM/CFS
> >>> case) the rate limit as the peripheral clock divided by 3 (i.e. ssc clk / 1.5).
> >>> Since the SSC spec expresses the rate limit in terms of the
> >>> peripheral clock, this was what I came up with. I didn't want to require dt
> changes...
> >>
> >> You make a misunderstand for the mck for ssc peripheral. The mck here
> >> is not the system mck, it only related with the ssc, it is the PMC output.
> >> For example, in device tree, the ssc clock divided by 2, then the pmc
> >> output for ssc is "system mck / 2", so the ssc mck is "system mck / 2".
> >> If divided by 4, then the ssc mck is "system / 4"
> >
> > I think the reason for my misunderstanding might be that in the
> > 3.10-at91 tree, the ssc clk is twice the rate compared to what it is
> > in the 3.18-at91 tree. This made me assume that the ssc clk had
> 
> I think maybe you didn't use the latest linux-3.10-at91 code. In that code, we
> also divided by 2 in device tree.

That's a rather confusing statement. The clock tree isn't even managed
by the device tree in linux-3.10-at91. Sure, there's the 12MHz system
master clock in sama5d3.dtsi, but that's about it. The rest of the clocks
are in arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c. And the part about ssc0/ssc1
hasn't been updated since it was added in 3.9. What am I missing?

> > been changed to mean the rate after the fixed divider by two that is
> > activated as soon as the ssc clock divider (given by SSC_CMR) is
> > activated, and that it was a simple matter of multiplying by two to
> > get to the MCK rate. I further assumed that "Master Clock" in the
> > "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section was this MCK. Maybe the
> > mistake was to involve the peripheral clock at all?
> >
> > Ok, so I may have misunderstood, but in that case what does that mean
> > in terms of finding the "Master Clock" rate that is mentioned in the
> > "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section? Is it perhaps the rate of
> > the parent clock of the given ssc clk? Or, given the above
> > explanation, is it correct to simply multiply by two as I have done?
> 
> The "Master Clock" actually is the same as "Peripheral clock".
> 
> Thanks for your information, I will send this to our datasheet team to update
> this part.

You are still not saying how to get to the "Master Clock" rate (i.e. the
"Master Clock" that is mentioned in the "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations"
section. You are only implying that multiplying the ssc clock rate with 2 is
wrong for some reason.

Are you saying that the ssc clock is supposed to be this "Master Clock"?

Cheers,
Peter

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09 10:25           ` Peter Rosin
@ 2015-02-09 10:37             ` Bo Shen
  2015-02-09 14:50               ` Peter Rosin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Bo Shen @ 2015-02-09 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Rosin, Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Hi Peter,

On 02/09/2015 06:25 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Bo Shen wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>
> Hi!
>
>> On 02/09/2015 05:07 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Bo Shen wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> On 02/09/2015 04:09 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [Snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
>>>>>>>       * DAI functions
>>>>>>> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct
>>>> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>>>>>>      	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
>>>>>>>      	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
>>>>>>>      	int dir, dir_mask;
>>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
>>>>>>>      		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR)); @@ -207,6 +298,7
>> @@
>>>> static
>>>>>>> int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>>>>>>      	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
>>>>>>>      	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
>>>>>>>      	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
>>>>>>> +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you have in mind? Add another clock to the ssc node in the
>>>>> device tree?
>>>>>
>>>>> IIUC, the device tree (at least normally) has the ssc clk as the
>>>>> peripheral clock divided by 2, but the ssc specifies (when capturing
>>>>> in the CBM/CFS
>>>>> case) the rate limit as the peripheral clock divided by 3 (i.e. ssc clk / 1.5).
>>>>> Since the SSC spec expresses the rate limit in terms of the
>>>>> peripheral clock, this was what I came up with. I didn't want to require dt
>> changes...
>>>>
>>>> You make a misunderstand for the mck for ssc peripheral. The mck here
>>>> is not the system mck, it only related with the ssc, it is the PMC output.
>>>> For example, in device tree, the ssc clock divided by 2, then the pmc
>>>> output for ssc is "system mck / 2", so the ssc mck is "system mck / 2".
>>>> If divided by 4, then the ssc mck is "system / 4"
>>>
>>> I think the reason for my misunderstanding might be that in the
>>> 3.10-at91 tree, the ssc clk is twice the rate compared to what it is
>>> in the 3.18-at91 tree. This made me assume that the ssc clk had
>>
>> I think maybe you didn't use the latest linux-3.10-at91 code. In that code, we
>> also divided by 2 in device tree.
>
> That's a rather confusing statement. The clock tree isn't even managed
> by the device tree in linux-3.10-at91. Sure, there's the 12MHz system
> master clock in sama5d3.dtsi, but that's about it. The rest of the clocks
> are in arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c. And the part about ssc0/ssc1
> hasn't been updated since it was added in 3.9. What am I missing?

I am not sure what the kernel you are talking about now.

In linux-3.10-at91 branch on github.com/linux4sam/linux-at91. In the 
<arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c>

--->8---
static struct clk ssc0_clk = {
         .name           = "ssc0_clk",
         .pid            = SAMA5D3_ID_SSC0,
         .type           = CLK_TYPE_PERIPHERAL,
         .div            = AT91_PMC_PCR_DIV2,
};
static struct clk ssc1_clk = {
         .name           = "ssc1_clk",
         .pid            = SAMA5D3_ID_SSC1,
         .type           = CLK_TYPE_PERIPHERAL,
         .div            = AT91_PMC_PCR_DIV2,
};
---8<---

That means, the clock output from PMC is "system clock / 2" which will 
be fed to ssc (here we call it SSC peripheral clock = "system clock / 2").

>>> been changed to mean the rate after the fixed divider by two that is
>>> activated as soon as the ssc clock divider (given by SSC_CMR) is
>>> activated, and that it was a simple matter of multiplying by two to
>>> get to the MCK rate. I further assumed that "Master Clock" in the
>>> "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section was this MCK. Maybe the
>>> mistake was to involve the peripheral clock at all?
>>>
>>> Ok, so I may have misunderstood, but in that case what does that mean
>>> in terms of finding the "Master Clock" rate that is mentioned in the
>>> "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section? Is it perhaps the rate of
>>> the parent clock of the given ssc clk? Or, given the above
>>> explanation, is it correct to simply multiply by two as I have done?
>>
>> The "Master Clock" actually is the same as "Peripheral clock".
>>
>> Thanks for your information, I will send this to our datasheet team to update
>> this part.
>
> You are still not saying how to get to the "Master Clock" rate (i.e. the
> "Master Clock" that is mentioned in the "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations"
> section. You are only implying that multiplying the ssc clock rate with 2 is
> wrong for some reason.

I mean in that section you mentioned. The "Master Clock" is the same as 
"Peripheral Clock". So, you get the SSC peripheral clock is what the 
clock ("Master Clock") you try to get ( clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk)).

> Are you saying that the ssc clock is supposed to be this "Master Clock"?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>

Best Regards,
Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

* RE: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
  2015-02-09 10:37             ` Bo Shen
@ 2015-02-09 14:50               ` Peter Rosin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Peter Rosin @ 2015-02-09 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bo Shen, Peter Rosin, alsa-devel
  Cc: Liam Girdwood, Mark Brown, Jaroslav Kysela, Takashi Iwai,
	linux-kernel, linux-arm-kernel

Bo Shen write:
> Hi Peter,

Hi!

[Snip]
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
> >>>>>>>       * DAI functions
> >>>>>>> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct
> >>>> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >>>>>>>      	struct atmel_ssc_info *ssc_p = &ssc_info[dai->id];
> >>>>>>>      	struct atmel_pcm_dma_params *dma_params;
> >>>>>>>      	int dir, dir_mask;
> >>>>>>> +	int ret;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_startup: SSC_SR=0x%u\n",
> >>>>>>>      		ssc_readl(ssc_p->ssc->regs, SR)); @@ -207,6 +298,7
> >> @@
> >>>> static
> >>>>>>> int atmel_ssc_startup(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >>>>>>>      	/* Enable PMC peripheral clock for this SSC */
> >>>>>>>      	pr_debug("atmel_ssc_dai: Starting clock\n");
> >>>>>>>      	clk_enable(ssc_p->ssc->clk);
> >>>>>>> +	ssc_p->mck_rate = clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk) * 2;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why the mck_rate is calculated in this form?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What did you have in mind? Add another clock to the ssc node in
> >>>>> the device tree?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IIUC, the device tree (at least normally) has the ssc clk as the
> >>>>> peripheral clock divided by 2, but the ssc specifies (when
> >>>>> capturing in the CBM/CFS
> >>>>> case) the rate limit as the peripheral clock divided by 3 (i.e. ssc clk /
> 1.5).
> >>>>> Since the SSC spec expresses the rate limit in terms of the
> >>>>> peripheral clock, this was what I came up with. I didn't want to
> >>>>> require dt
> >> changes...
> >>>>
> >>>> You make a misunderstand for the mck for ssc peripheral. The mck
> >>>> here is not the system mck, it only related with the ssc, it is the PMC
> output.
> >>>> For example, in device tree, the ssc clock divided by 2, then the
> >>>> pmc output for ssc is "system mck / 2", so the ssc mck is "system mck /
> 2".
> >>>> If divided by 4, then the ssc mck is "system / 4"
> >>>
> >>> I think the reason for my misunderstanding might be that in the
> >>> 3.10-at91 tree, the ssc clk is twice the rate compared to what it is
> >>> in the 3.18-at91 tree. This made me assume that the ssc clk had
> >>
> >> I think maybe you didn't use the latest linux-3.10-at91 code. In that
> >> code, we also divided by 2 in device tree.
> >
> > That's a rather confusing statement. The clock tree isn't even managed
> > by the device tree in linux-3.10-at91. Sure, there's the 12MHz system
> > master clock in sama5d3.dtsi, but that's about it. The rest of the
> > clocks are in arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c. And the part about
> > ssc0/ssc1 hasn't been updated since it was added in 3.9. What am I missing?
> 
> I am not sure what the kernel you are talking about now.
> 
> In linux-3.10-at91 branch on github.com/linux4sam/linux-at91. In the
> <arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c>
> 
> --->8---
> static struct clk ssc0_clk = {
>          .name           = "ssc0_clk",
>          .pid            = SAMA5D3_ID_SSC0,
>          .type           = CLK_TYPE_PERIPHERAL,
>          .div            = AT91_PMC_PCR_DIV2,
> };
> static struct clk ssc1_clk = {
>          .name           = "ssc1_clk",
>          .pid            = SAMA5D3_ID_SSC1,
>          .type           = CLK_TYPE_PERIPHERAL,
>          .div            = AT91_PMC_PCR_DIV2,
> };
> ---8<---

That's the same code I'm looking at. This has always worked as
expected for me in the linux-3.10-at91 kernel. However, in the
linux-3.18-at91 kernel, I definitely recall getting half the rate
when querying the ssc0 clock. I thought "the 3.18 way" was
the future, and adjusted. However, I don't get that difference
now, and I can't really explain what has changed. Strange.
Anyway, thanks for setting me straight!

> That means, the clock output from PMC is "system clock / 2" which will be fed
> to ssc (here we call it SSC peripheral clock = "system clock / 2").
> 
> >>> been changed to mean the rate after the fixed divider by two that is
> >>> activated as soon as the ssc clock divider (given by SSC_CMR) is
> >>> activated, and that it was a simple matter of multiplying by two to
> >>> get to the MCK rate. I further assumed that "Master Clock" in the
> >>> "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section was this MCK. Maybe the
> >>> mistake was to involve the peripheral clock at all?
> >>>
> >>> Ok, so I may have misunderstood, but in that case what does that
> >>> mean in terms of finding the "Master Clock" rate that is mentioned
> >>> in the "Serial Clock Ratio Considerations" section? Is it perhaps
> >>> the rate of the parent clock of the given ssc clk? Or, given the
> >>> above explanation, is it correct to simply multiply by two as I have done?
> >>
> >> The "Master Clock" actually is the same as "Peripheral clock".
> >>
> >> Thanks for your information, I will send this to our datasheet team
> >> to update this part.
> >
> > You are still not saying how to get to the "Master Clock" rate (i.e.
> > the "Master Clock" that is mentioned in the "Serial Clock Ratio
> Considerations"
> > section. You are only implying that multiplying the ssc clock rate
> > with 2 is wrong for some reason.
> 
> I mean in that section you mentioned. The "Master Clock" is the same as
> "Peripheral Clock". So, you get the SSC peripheral clock is what the clock
> ("Master Clock") you try to get ( clk_get_rate(ssc_p->ssc->clk)).
> 

Yes, I see now. I'll resend with the *2 (and the 500ppm discussed in the
other thread) removed.

> > Are you saying that the ssc clock is supposed to be this "Master Clock"?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> 
> Best Regards,
> Bo Shen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-09 14:50 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-02-04 11:52 [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates Peter Rosin
2015-02-06 23:09 ` Mark Brown
2015-02-07 10:51   ` Peter Rosin
2015-02-09  3:06     ` Bo Shen
2015-02-09  7:35       ` Peter Rosin
2015-02-09  8:00         ` Bo Shen
2015-02-09  8:17           ` Peter Rosin
2015-02-09  3:09 ` Bo Shen
2015-02-09  8:09   ` Peter Rosin
2015-02-09  8:37     ` Bo Shen
2015-02-09  9:07       ` Peter Rosin
2015-02-09  9:41         ` Bo Shen
2015-02-09 10:25           ` Peter Rosin
2015-02-09 10:37             ` Bo Shen
2015-02-09 14:50               ` Peter Rosin

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).