On 18-08-20, 06:53, Liao, Bard wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:36 PM > > To: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx; > > broonie@xxxxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jank@xxxxxxxxxxx; > > srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx; rander.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hui.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; pierre- > > louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kale, Sanyog R <sanyog.r.kale@xxxxxxxxx>; Lin, > > Mengdong <mengdong.lin@xxxxxxxxx>; Liao, Bard <bard.liao@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] soundwire: add definition for maximum number of > > ports > > > > On 18-08-20, 01:47, Bard Liao wrote: > > > From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > A Device may have at most 15 physical ports (DP0, DP1..DP14). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart > > > <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Rander Wang <rander.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski > > > <guennadi.liakhovetski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > include/linux/soundwire/sdw.h | 3 ++- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/soundwire/sdw.h > > > b/include/linux/soundwire/sdw.h index 76052f12c9f7..0aa4c6af7554 > > > 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/soundwire/sdw.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/soundwire/sdw.h > > > @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ struct sdw_slave; > > > #define SDW_FRAME_CTRL_BITS 48 > > > #define SDW_MAX_DEVICES 11 > > > > > > -#define SDW_VALID_PORT_RANGE(n) ((n) <= 14 && (n) >= 1) > > > +#define SDW_MAX_PORTS 15 > > > +#define SDW_VALID_PORT_RANGE(n) ((n) < > > SDW_MAX_PORTS && (n) >= 1) > > > > What is the use of this one if we are allocating all ports always, Also, I dont > > see it used in second patch? > > It is used in drivers/soundwire/stream.c and drivers/soundwire/debugfs.c. Ah overlooked that it is modified, pls ignore this comment -- ~Vinod
