[PATCH v2 1/5] ASoC: mediatek: mt8195: merge machine driver

[Trevor Wu]

On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 10:24 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> Hi,
> I didn't review too many details because I found the patch is not
> easy to
> review.  Please consider to not reorder symbols if it can.  If it is
> still
> hard to generate reasonable chunks or the reorders are necessary, it
> could
> put some refactor patches prior to the "merge".

Hi Tzung-Bi,

Thanks for your suggestion.
Originally, I try to delete the old machine drivers and create a new
one, so the layout is reordered and some functions are copied from
mt8195-mt6359-rt1011-rt5682.c. But the git patch becomes a diff with
mt8195-mt6359-rt1019-rt5682.c.

I can split the one into two patches in v3, one is "merge" and another
one is "revise".
I hope it can make the review easier.

> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 02:01:35PM +0800, Trevor Wu wrote:
> > diff --git a/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8195/mt8195-mt6359-rt1019-
> > rt5682.c b/sound/soc/mediatek/mt8195/mt8195-mt6359.c
> 
> [...]
> >  #include <linux/input.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> >  #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> >  #include <sound/jack.h>
> >  #include <sound/pcm_params.h>
> >  #include <sound/rt5682.h>
> > -#include <sound/sof.h>
> 
> Why does it remove the header?
It seems that the header is redundant, because the driver works on my
platform.
But I will double confirm it.

> 
> > +struct mt8195_mt6359_priv {
> > +	struct snd_soc_jack headset_jack;
> > +	struct snd_soc_jack dp_jack;
> > +	struct snd_soc_jack hdmi_jack;
> > +	struct clk *i2so1_mclk;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct mt8195_card_data {
> > +	const char *name;
> > +	unsigned long quirk;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct sof_conn_stream {
> > +	const char *normal_link;
> > +	const char *sof_link;
> > +	const char *sof_dma;
> > +	int stream_dir;
> > +};
> 
> [...]
> > -struct sof_conn_stream {
> > -	const char *normal_link;
> > -	const char *sof_link;
> > -	const char *sof_dma;
> > -	int stream_dir;
> > -};
> > -
> > -struct mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_priv {
> > -	struct snd_soc_jack headset_jack;
> > -	struct snd_soc_jack dp_jack;
> > -	struct snd_soc_jack hdmi_jack;
> > -	struct clk *i2so1_mclk;
> > -};
> 
> The effective operation here: rename from
> mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_priv
> to mt8195_mt6359_priv.  However, it somehow reorders the code.  As a
> result,
> the change looks like more complicated than just a "merge" operation.
> 
> > -static const struct snd_soc_dapm_route
> > mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_routes[] = {
> > -	/* speaker */
> > -	{ "Speakers", NULL, "Speaker" },
> > +static const struct snd_kcontrol_new mt8195_mt6359_controls[] = {
> > +	SOC_DAPM_PIN_SWITCH("Headphone Jack"),
> > +	SOC_DAPM_PIN_SWITCH("Headset Mic"),
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct snd_soc_dapm_route mt8195_mt6359_routes[] = {
> >  	/* headset */
> >  	{ "Headphone Jack", NULL, "HPOL" },
> >  	{ "Headphone Jack", NULL, "HPOR" },
> > @@ -80,55 +94,31 @@ static const struct snd_soc_dapm_route
> > mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_routes[] = {
> >  	{"I021", NULL, SOF_DMA_DL3},
> >  };
> >  
> > -static const struct snd_kcontrol_new
> > mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_controls[] = {
> > -	SOC_DAPM_PIN_SWITCH("Speakers"),
> > -	SOC_DAPM_PIN_SWITCH("Headphone Jack"),
> > -	SOC_DAPM_PIN_SWITCH("Headset Mic"),
> > +static const struct snd_soc_dapm_widget
> > mt8195_dual_speaker_widgets[] = {
> > +	SND_SOC_DAPM_SPK("Left Speaker", NULL),
> > +	SND_SOC_DAPM_SPK("Right Speaker", NULL),
> >  };
> >  
> > -static int mt8195_rt5682_etdm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream
> > *substream,
> > -					struct snd_pcm_hw_params
> > *params)
> > -{
> 
> [...]
> > +static const struct snd_kcontrol_new
> > mt8195_dual_speaker_controls[] = {
> > +	SOC_DAPM_PIN_SWITCH("Left Speaker"),
> > +	SOC_DAPM_PIN_SWITCH("Right Speaker"),
> > +};
> 
> Ditto.  I would expect it only renames and adds something.  However,
> if you
> look at the block and the following, it looks like changed a lot.
> 
> > @@ -143,20 +133,20 @@ static int
> > mt8195_mt6359_mtkaif_calibration(struct snd_soc_pcm_runtime *rtd)
> >  	struct mtk_base_afe *afe =
> > snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(cmpnt_afe);
> >  	struct mt8195_afe_private *afe_priv = afe->platform_priv;
> >  	struct mtkaif_param *param = &afe_priv->mtkaif_params;
> > -	int phase;
> > -	unsigned int monitor;
> > -	int mtkaif_calibration_num_phase;
> > +	int chosen_phase_1, chosen_phase_2, chosen_phase_3;
> > +	int prev_cycle_1, prev_cycle_2, prev_cycle_3;
> >  	int test_done_1, test_done_2, test_done_3;
> >  	int cycle_1, cycle_2, cycle_3;
> > -	int prev_cycle_1, prev_cycle_2, prev_cycle_3;
> > -	int chosen_phase_1, chosen_phase_2, chosen_phase_3;
> > -	int counter;
> > -	bool mtkaif_calibration_ok;
> >  	int mtkaif_chosen_phase[MT8195_MTKAIF_MISO_NUM];
> >  	int mtkaif_phase_cycle[MT8195_MTKAIF_MISO_NUM];
> > +	int mtkaif_calibration_num_phase;
> > +	bool mtkaif_calibration_ok;
> > +	unsigned int monitor;
> > +	int counter;
> > +	int phase;
> >  	int i;
> 
> The reorder of variable declaration is irrelevant to the patch.  Drop
> them.
> If it has good reason to do so, send another patch for the purpose.

This function is copied from mt8195-mt6359-rt1011-rt5682.c, because
this is the latest version of mt8195_mt6359_mtkaif_calibration().
The reordering is suggested by the reviewer.


> 
> > @@ -513,7 +446,7 @@ static int mt8195_playback_startup(struct
> > snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static const struct snd_soc_ops mt8195_playback_ops = {
> > +const struct snd_soc_ops mt8195_playback_ops = {
> >  	.startup = mt8195_playback_startup,
> 
> Why does it remove the `static`?

Sorry, I will add it in v3.

> 
> > +static int mt8195_mt6359_dev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> 
> [...]
> > +	match = of_match_device(pdev->dev.driver->of_match_table,
> > &pdev->dev);
> > +	if (!match || !match->data)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	card_data = (struct mt8195_card_data *)match->data;
> 
> Use of_device_get_match_data().

OK.

> 
> > -static const struct dev_pm_ops mt8195_mt6359_rt1019_rt5682_pm_ops
> > = {
> > +const struct dev_pm_ops mt8195_mt6359_pm_ops = {
> >  	.poweroff = snd_soc_poweroff,
> >  	.restore = snd_soc_resume,
> >  };
> 
> Why does it remove the `static`?

I will add it in v3.

Thanks,
Trevor