On Thu, 2023-12-07 at 18:28 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 01:04:27AM +0100, Gergo Koteles wrote: > > > Invalid indexes are not the best default values. > > I'm guessing this is just fallout from the previous (not really > explained patch)? Is there perhaps some bootstrapping issue here with > ensuring that the program and configuration get written to the device if > the user doesn't explicitly select something in a control? I added the >0 checks because I encountered a NULL pointer dereference. Because tasdevice_init sets tas_priv->cur_prog = -1 tas_priv->cur_conf = -1 tasdev_fw_ready calls tasdevice_prmg_load(tas_priv, 0) which sets tasdevice[i]->prg_no = 0 Then the playback hook calls tasdevice_tuning_switch(tas_hda->priv, 0) tasdevice_select_tuningprm_cfg(tas_priv, cur_prog (-1), cur_conf (-1), profile_cfg_id (0)); tasdevice_select_tuningprm_cfg checks if (tas_priv->tasdevice[i].cur_prog (0) != prm_no (-1) and tries to load the program from program = &(tas_fmw->programs[prm_no (-1)]); tasdevice_load_data(tas_priv, &(program->dev_data)); I think the intention was to load the first program, first configuration, first profile. And that's the safe thing to do. So I expressed that with this commit. Yes, I need to write much better commit messages.
