At Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:40:04 +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 15:30 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:25:40 +0100, > > Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 08:31 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 09:10:23AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > If the above difference is intentional, it should be commented > > > > > somewhere. > > > > > > > > Meh, yes. Dimitris, please fix or add a comment as appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > In snd_soc_7_9_spi_write we prepare the tx buffer to be register > > > followed by data packed into 16 bits. In snd_soc_4_12_spi_write the tx > > > buffer is swapped. I'd expect this to be consistent between the two > > > transfers. > > > > Sorry, I don't understand your statement clearly. > > So, the byte-swap behavior in snd_soc_4_12_spi_write() is designed? > > I meant to say that snd_soc_4_12_spi_write looks suspicious and that I'd > expect it to behave similarly to snd_soc_7_9_spi_write. I don't see why > the byte swapping is needed. OK, thanks for clarifying :) Looking through git commits, this was introduced by a patch from Barry Song. Barry, could you check whether the current code is correct? I guess this is because the original code accessed unsigned short while the new code is converted to a byte array. Maybe due to the endianess, but it looks wrong. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
