On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 11:03 PM, pHilipp Zabel <philipp.zabel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: >>> >>>> To me, using ssp_dev seems to be cleaner, as all the places where >>>> ssp_set_scr is called, we already have an ssp_dev *ssp = priv->dev.ssp >>>> set up, which allows us to call ssp_set_scr(ssp, ...) instead of >>>> ssp_set_scr(&priv->dev, ...). Same for ssp_get_scr. >>> >>> Yeah, the combination of ssp_dev and ssp_device is icky in general and >>> largely historical as a result of a partially done transition of the >>> driver to ssp_device. >>> >> >> I'm working on that clean up. A lot of historical and dependency issues >> indeed. > > Glad to hear that. I think once SSP is cleaned up, the single USB > gadget controller driver is the only problem left for kernels > supporting both PXA25x/27x at the same time. > >> And the patch looks OK. The condition of cpu_is_pxa25x() might not >> be necessary though, ssp->type == PXA25x_SSP already implies that >> and is more specific. > > Thanks. The idea was that the compiler can remove the PXA25x_SSP > branch for kernels without PXA25x support this way. > I guess the savings are negligible here, but it shouldn't hurt > PXA25x-only kernels either. > This is very smart. However, the problem is that cpu_is_pxa25x() implies pxa21x, pxa250, pxa255, pxa26x at the moment, and that pxa255/pxa26x has additional ASSP and NSSP which resembles much the PXA27x_SSP (with additional 4-bit for SCR). I don't think too much about that optimization, yet I wonder if these cases are also counted in. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
