On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 16:29 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:27:47AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 16:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > If you check the code again you will notice that these functons are all
> > > used in ops structures which presents obvious issues when trying to
> > > replace with open coded checks.
> > > I hope their usefulness is clear given the above.
> > There is some value in using consistent
> > function styles for table driven and non-table
> > driven instances.
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. What do you
> believe to be inconsistent?
I don't believe anything to be inconsistent about
the volatile uses and was agreeing with you.
Some codecs functions for volatile access use
a switch/case,
static int wm8994_volatile(unsigned int reg)
{
if (reg >= WM8994_REG_CACHE_SIZE)
return 1;
switch (reg) {
case WM8994_SOFTWARE_RESET:
case WM8994_CHIP_REVISION:
case WM8994_DC_SERVO_1:
case WM8994_DC_SERVO_READBACK:
case WM8994_RATE_STATUS:
case WM8994_LDO_1:
case WM8994_LDO_2:
return 1;
default:
return 0;
}
}
others use the register variable from the struct
static int wm8962_volatile_register(unsigned int reg)
{
if (wm8962_reg_access[reg].volatile_register)
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
so I'm agreeing that it's useful to keep the
same access style in multiple codecs instead
of using separate styles in each one.
It'd be even better to use a similarly consistent
function naming scheme.
cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
