[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] ASoC: atmel_ssc_dai: Allow more rates
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

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-09 09:21    [W:0.067 / U:2.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site