Mark, Without the patch, value of val is the value of the enumerated control (mux), so dapm_mux_update_power didn't go wrong. But snd_soc_test_bits need the bitmask value, so I changed the original variable name "val" to "mux" and add a new variable "val" which means bitmask value. So the meaning of val and mux is unified with that in dapm_mux_update_power. Though you can't find "if (!snd_soc_test_bits(widget->codec, e->reg, mask, val))" in the patch, it's what I want to fix. Thanks Richard 2008/9/28 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 08:43:16PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > > > Fix wrong param when call snd_soc_test_bits in function dapm_mux_update_power. > > So... This patch doesn't actually do what the changelog entry here > says: the arguments to snd_soc_test_bits() remain the same before and > after your change. > > > - if (!path->name || ! e->texts[val]) > > + if (!path->name || !e->texts[mux]) > > continue; > > What this is actually doing is changing the enum text examined to be > indexed by mux (the value of the enumerated control) rather than val > (the bitmask in the register). This looks like a good change but I want > to double check with a test system. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
