On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:48:16PM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote:
> +static struct device_node *snd_soc_find_phandle(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct device_node *node;
> +
> + node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "usb-soc-be", 0);
Very nitpicky but this function possibly wants a _usb_ in the name, not
that it *super* matters with it being static. Or it could just be
inlined into the only user and not worry about the naming at all.
> +/**
> + * snd_soc_usb_get_priv_data() - Retrieve private data stored
> + * @dev: device reference
> + *
> + * Fetch the private data stored in the USB SND SOC structure.
> + *
> + */
> +void *snd_soc_usb_get_priv_data(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct snd_soc_usb *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = snd_soc_find_usb_ctx(dev);
> + if (!ctx) {
> + /* Check if backend device */
> + mutex_lock(&ctx_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry(ctx, &usb_ctx_list, list) {
> + if (dev->of_node == ctx->dev->of_node) {
> + mutex_unlock(&ctx_mutex);
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&ctx_mutex);
> + ctx = NULL;
> + }
This seems a lot more expensive than I'd expect for a get_priv_data
operation, usually it's just a container_of() or other constant time
pulling out of a pointer rather than a linked list walk - the sort of
thing that people put at the start of functions and do all the time.
If we need this I think it needs a name that's more clearly tied to the
use case.
I didn't actually find the user of this though?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
