> On 25 Aug 2020, at 11:58 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> 506 switch (config->chan_nr) {
>>>>> 507 case 8:
>>>>> 508 case 4:
>>>>> 509 /*
>>>>> 510 * Platform is not capable of providing clocks for
>>>>> 511 * multi channel audio
>>>>> 512 */
>>>>> 513 if (kmb_i2s->master)
>>>>> 514 return -EINVAL;
>>>>> 515
>>>>> 516 write_val = ((config->chan_nr / 2) << TDM_CHANNEL_CONFIG_BIT) |
>>>>> 517 (config->data_width << DATA_WIDTH_CONFIG_BIT) |
>>>>> 518 !MASTER_MODE | TDM_OPERATION;
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> MASTER_MODE is BIT(13). It's unclear what this is supposed to be. My
>>>>> best guess is that the ! should just be deleted.
>>>>
>>>> This ! is intentional because it is meant to be Slave mode. Would a better approach be to create another #define for slave mode?
>>>
>>> In my opinion, it's better to just leave it out. ORing with zero causes
>>> a different static checker warning on my unreleased checks... Is it
>>> 0 << 13? I feel like ORing with zero just makes things more confusing.
>>>
>> It is 0<<13, in the event it was previously configured to Master I would need to unset the bit
>
> You are assigning the result to write_val, so there's no memory of what was configured before?
Yea you are right, would leaving this !MASTER_MODE out the best solution?
