Bo Shen write:
> Hi Peter,
Hi!
[Snip]
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /*-*\
> >>> * DAI functions
> >>> @@ -200,6 +290,7 @@ static int atmel_ssc_startup(struct
> snd_pcm_substream *substream,
> >
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]
/*-*\
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]
> >>
> >
> >
> > /*-*\
>
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
s
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 *
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_i
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
Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Peter,
Hi!
> On 02/04/2015 07:52 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > From: Peter Rosin
> >
> > 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 50
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 w
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 pul
Hi Peter,
On 02/04/2015 07:52 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
From: Peter Rosin
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 di
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 wha
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
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
From: Peter Rosin
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/ g
15 matches
Mail list logo
