On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:43:50PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/09/2024 17:17, Liao, Bard wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> then dpn_prop[0].num = 1 and dpn_prop[1].num = 3. And we need to go
> >>>
> >>> throuth dpn_prop[0] and dpn_prop[1] instead of dpn_prop[1] and
> >> dpn_prop[3].
> >>>
> >>
> >> What are the source or sink ports in your case? Maybe you just generate
> >> wrong mask?
> >
> > I checked my mask is 0xa when I do aplay and it matches the sink_ports of
> > the rt722 codec.
> >
> >>
> >> It's not only my patch which uses for_each_set_bit(). sysfs_slave_dpn
> >> does the same.
> >
> > What sysfs_slave_dpn does is
> > i = 0;
> > for_each_set_bit(bit, &mask, 32) {
> > if (bit == N) {
> > return sprintf(buf, format_string,
> > dpn[i].field);
> > }
> > i++;
> > }
> > It uses a variable "i" to represent the array index of dpn[i].
> > But, it is for_each_set_bit(i, &mask, 32) in your patch and the variable "i"
> > which represents each bit of the mask is used as the index of dpn_prop[i].
> >
> > Again, the point is that the bits of mask is not the index of the dpn_prop[]
> > array.
>
> Yes, you are right. I think I cannot achieve my initial goal of using
> same dpn array with different indices. My patch should be reverted, I
> believe.
>
> I'll send a revert, sorry for the mess.
>
Hi, apologies for being late to the party (was on holiday), but yeah
this is breaking things for me as well and is clearly wrong.
Agree probably best to revert.
Thanks,
Charles
