Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sat, 14 May 2016 11:50:50 +0200,
> Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> >> +unsigned int ac97_bus_scan_one(struct ac97_controller *ac97,
>> >> + int codec_num)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct ac97_codec_device codec;
>> >> + unsigned short vid1, vid2;
>> >> + int ret;
>> >> +
>> >> + codec.dev = *ac97->dev;
>> >> + codec.num = codec_num;
>> >> + ret = ac97->ops->read(&codec, AC97_VENDOR_ID1);
>> >> + vid1 = (ret & 0xffff);
>> >> + if (ret < 0)
>> >> + return 0;
>> >
>> > Hmm. This looks pretty hackish and dangerous.
>> You mean returning 0 even if the read failed, right ?
>
> No, my concern is that it's creating a dummy codec object temporarily
> on the stack just by copying some fields and calling the ops with it.
> (And actually the current code may work wrongly because lack of
> zero-clear of the object.)
Ah yes, I remember now, the on-stack generated device, indeed ugly.
> IMO, a cleaner way would be to define the ops passed with both
> controller and codec objects as arguments, and pass NULL codec here.
It's rather unusual to need both the device and its controller in bus
operations. I must admit I have no better idea so far, so I'll try that just to
see how it looks like, and let's see next ...
Cheers.
--
Robert
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
