> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:09:46PM +0800, shumingf@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > +static int rt712_sdca_mux_put(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> > + struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol) {
> > + struct snd_soc_component *component =
> > + snd_soc_dapm_kcontrol_component(kcontrol);
> > + struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm =
> > + snd_soc_dapm_kcontrol_dapm(kcontrol);
> > + struct rt712_sdca_priv *rt712 =
> snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(component);
> > + struct soc_enum *e = (struct soc_enum *)kcontrol->private_value;
> > + unsigned int *item = ucontrol->value.enumerated.item;
> > + unsigned int mask_sft;
>
> > +
> > + snd_soc_dapm_mux_update_power(dapm, kcontrol,
> > + item[0], e, NULL);
> > +
> > + return 1;
> > +}
>
> This unconditionally returns 1 if the value written is in bounds which means
> that an event will always be signalled. Please use mixer-test to check for this
> and other issues.
I will add the code to check.
return 0 if no need to be changed
return 1 if needs to be changed
Thanks.
> > + /* set sampling frequency */
> > + if (dai->id == RT712_AIF1) {
> > + regmap_write(rt712->regmap,
> > + SDW_SDCA_CTL(FUNC_NUM_JACK_CODEC,
> RT712_SDCA_ENT_CS01, RT712_SDCA_CTL_SAMPLE_FREQ_INDEX, 0),
> > + sampling_rate);
> > + regmap_write(rt712->regmap,
> > + SDW_SDCA_CTL(FUNC_NUM_JACK_CODEC,
> RT712_SDCA_ENT_CS11, RT712_SDCA_CTL_SAMPLE_FREQ_INDEX, 0),
> > + sampling_rate);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (dai->id == RT712_AIF2)
> > + regmap_write(rt712->regmap,
> > + SDW_SDCA_CTL(FUNC_NUM_AMP, RT712_SDCA_ENT_CS31,
> RT712_SDCA_CTL_SAMPLE_FREQ_INDEX, 0),
> > + sampling_rate);
>
> This would be better written as a switch statement, there were some other
> checks for variants that looked to have similar issues. It makes it clearer that
> only one option can be selected and allows you to have a default check that
> makes sure that any new variant with another AIF gets handled.
OK, will send the patch to fix.
> ------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
