Add framelength property to i2s_mcux_flexcomm.c driver.

[janmft]

When the number of bit clock on the bus between two neighboring WS value is greater than bitWidth times lineChannels, frameLength needs to be set to the value that is equal to the number of bit clock between two neighboring WS signal.

[github-actions]

Hello @janmft, and thank you very much for your first pull request to the Zephyr project!
Our Continuous Integration pipeline will execute a series of checks on your Pull Request commit messages and code, and you are expected to address any failures by updating the PR. Please take a look at our commit message guidelines to find out how to format your commit messages, and at our contribution workflow to understand how to update your Pull Request. If you haven't already, please make sure to review the project's Contributor Expectations and update (by amending and force-pushing the commits) your pull request if necessary.
If you are stuck or need help please join us on Discord and ask your question there. Additionally, you can escalate the review when applicable. 😊

[janmft]

My intention was a very small fix on a driver with about 20 lines of code, most lines are documentation.

There have been failing checks about formatting, and i tried to fix, but checks still fail so I run
clang-format as described in https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/contribute/style/index.html#clang-format (My fault).

The result was a 130 change and now checks complain about lines I never want to change for the fix.

Last complain is about:

- static inline void i2s_purge_stream_buffers(struct stream *stream,
-                        struct k_mem_slab *mem_slab,
+ static inline void i2s_purge_stream_buffers(struct stream *stream, struct k_mem_slab *mem_slab,
+                        bool tx)

That struct stream and the pointer has the same name.

When i want to fix it, i have to rewrite the complete driver. Is this expected or wanted?

How to proceed?

We need this change, but the formal hurdles to get it into Zephyr seems to high.

[decsny]

hi @janmft , it is hard for me to tell what is going on here , can you remove the commit that ran clang format, and only submit your changes, then we can look at what CI is doing with just that

[janmft]

For me it looks simpler (less work) to close this PR and set up an new one.

Zephyr is very fast, there have been more than 730 commits now. And it feels like also clang or checkpatch config has changed.

When I have prepared a new PR (beginning next week) I will close this with a comment then.

[decsny]

For me it looks simpler (less work) to close this PR and set up an new one.

Zephyr is very fast, there have been more than 730 commits now. And it feels like also clang or checkpatch config has changed.

When I have prepared a new PR (beginning next week) I will close this with a comment then.

Don't do that, just rebase and force push. It's not harder.