lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 3/4] ALSA: cs35l41: Add shared boost feature
From
On 20-02-2023 19:25, David Rhodes wrote:
>
> On 2/12/23 03:28, Lucas Tanure wrote:
>> On 11-02-2023 17:06, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 02:39:56PM +0000, Lucas Tanure wrote:
>>>> On 10-02-2023 13:43, Charles Keepax wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 09:19:41AM +0000, Lucas Tanure wrote:
>>>>>> + {CS35L41_MDSYNC_EN,        0x00001000},
>>>>> David's internal patch appears to set 0x3000 on the active side,
>>>>> not sure where that difference snuck in, or which is the correct
>>>>> value. Your settings appear to make logical sense to me though, TX
>>>>> on the active side, RX on the passive side.
>>>> And as the patch sets TX and RX in the same chip I changed to follow
>>>> the documentation.
>>>
>>> Yeah I mean I suspect this is sensible, unless there is some
>>> reason the controller side also needs to have RX enabled. Perhaps
>>> for feedback or something from the passive side, but I imagine
>>> this is just a typo in the original patch.
>>
>> Ok, but the other side doesn't have both RX and TX enabled.
>> If the active side needed RX to receive information for the other
>> side, the passive one would need TX enabled too.
>> So if a feedback is necessary, both channels on both sides would be
>> enabled, not one channel in one side and both on the other.
>>
> Both amps need to transmit their boost targets to the MDSYNC bus. The
> active amp needs to receive the combined boost target from the MDSYNC
> bus. That is why the active amp should enable both RX and TX, and the
> passive amp only needs to enable TX. It is not simply a unidirectional
> flow of data from one amp to the other.
>
> Sorry if the documentation has been mismatched or confusing at times.
> It's taken me a while to gather the right understanding of how this all
> works.
>
>
> On 2/10/23 03:19, Lucas Tanure wrote:
>> + Shared boost allows two amplifiers to share a single boost circuit by
>> + communicating on the MDSYNC bus. The passive amplifier does not control
>> + the boost and receives data from the active amplifier. GPIO1 should be
>
> Not quite correct. I would suggest: "Shared boost allows two amplifiers
> to share a single boost circuit by communicating on the MDSYNC bus. The
> active amplifier controls the boost circuit using combined data from
> both amplifiers."
Ok

>
>
> On 2/10/23 08:39, Lucas Tanure wrote:
>>
>> This write here is to select the boost control source, which for the
>> active should be "Class H tracking value".
>
> Active should use the MDSYNC value. Otherwise it will not provide boost
> to the passive amp when there is only audio on the passive amp's channel.
David can you confirm that both sides should use MDSYNC for boost
control source?


>
>
> I believe there is another change needed for the Deck, to handle the
> 'legacy' property names instead of bst-type?
I am working with valve to update their bios.

>
> Other than the changes needed to the reg_sequences this looks good.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:29    [W:0.049 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site