On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 05:10:45AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Rename the declaration and uses of variables
> named vol to volatile_register to avoid name
> clash with the much more common use of vol
> for volume.
Are any of the contexts actually ambiguous? I have to say I don't find
this useful. If the register I/O code knows anything about volumes I'd
say we've probably messed up somewhere.
> > > static struct {
> > > bool readable;
> > > bool writable,
> > > bool vol;
> > > } etc...
> > The readable and writable fields are being used as bitmasks:
> No, they are being declared as bitmasks.
> writable is used once as bool, readable isn't used at all.
They're being used in the table initialisation.
> > | + { 0x1F, 0x1F, 1 }, /* 03 battery voltage */
> > so this discards data which we may wish to use in future.
> It's not used as bitmask now, what use would there
> be in the future for it as a bitmask?
Examples would include validating I/O operations done by drivers, or
supporting fancy cache handling that pays attention to things per bit.
> > vol is traditionally used for this throughout the subsystem. It's
> > unfortuante that volatile is a keyword.
> As far as I see, your description of vol being
> used throughout the subsystem is not true.
I'm sorry? It's used as the field name for volatility in all the
drivers I can remember that use a table to look volatility up in
register properties.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
