2008/9/29 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 07:27:27AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > > Please don't top post. > >> 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 > > This appears to suggest that this is a pure coding style change but that > doesn't tie in with any of the rest of your message or the content of > the actual patch - what do you mean when you say that it "didn't go > wrong"? > >> 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. > > I think that what you mean to say here is that dapm_mux_update_power() > is using val as both the index into the options for the mux and as the > shifted value of the relevant bits in the register and these won't be > the same unless the bits aren't shifted in the register? If so could > you please resubmit with a changelog entry saying so? > >> 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. > > There is no reference at all to snd_soc_test_bits() in your patch since > you didn't change that line or anything near enough to it to include it > in the patch and it's not immediately obvious that you've changed the > meaning of the val argument. > > For future reference the main problem here is that your changelog simply > says that you "Fix wrong param" but doesn't go into any detail on what's > incorrect about which parameter or what's incorrect about the parameter. > OK, I will send out a new patch with only change log changed. BR Richard _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
