On 11/16/2015 07:40 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> This fixes typo in comment and fixes mcasp_set_ctl_reg to actually
> printk on error as author wanted, and cleans it up. Yes, i will end up
> being 1001 in the old code.
Yeah, the original code had the additional GBLCTL register check after the
timeout. Which was pointless IMHO.
I'm fine with the change, but...
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c b/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c
> index b960e62..a739ca8 100644
> --- a/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c
> +++ b/sound/soc/davinci/davinci-mcasp.c
> @@ -148,15 +150,14 @@ static void mcasp_set_ctl_reg(struct davinci_mcasp *mcasp, u32 ctl_reg, u32 val)
>
> mcasp_set_bits(mcasp, ctl_reg, val);
>
> - /* programming GBLCTL needs to read back from GBLCTL and verfiy */
> + /* programming GBLCTL needs to read back from GBLCTL and verify */
> /* loop count is to avoid the lock-up */
> - for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i <= 1000; i++) {
Does it really make any difference to change this from looping 1000 times to
1001 times?
> if ((mcasp_get_reg(mcasp, ctl_reg) & val) == val)
> - break;
> + return;
> }
>
> - if (i == 1000 && ((mcasp_get_reg(mcasp, ctl_reg) & val) != val))
> - printk(KERN_ERR "GBLCTL write error\n");
> + printk(KERN_ERR "GBLCTL write error\n");
Can you change this to dev_err(mcasp->dev, ...);
> }
>
> static bool mcasp_is_synchronous(struct davinci_mcasp *mcasp)
>
>
--
Péter
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
