On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 08:27:46AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 4/21/18 10:53 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 06:47:24AM -0700, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> >>
> >>>+static int sdw_enable_disable_slave_ports(struct sdw_bus *bus,
> >>>+ struct sdw_slave_runtime *s_rt,
> >>>+ struct sdw_port_runtime *p_rt, bool en)
> >>>+{
> >>>+ struct sdw_transport_params *t_params = &p_rt->transport_params;
> >>>+ u32 addr;
> >>>+ int ret;
> >>>+
> >>>+ if (bus->params.next_bank)
> >>>+ addr = SDW_DPN_CHANNELEN_B1(p_rt->num);
> >>>+ else
> >>>+ addr = SDW_DPN_CHANNELEN_B0(p_rt->num);
> >>>+
> >>>+ /*
> >>>+ * Since bus doesn't support sharing a port across two streams,
> >>>+ * it is safe to reset this register
> >>>+ */
> >>>+ if (en)
> >>>+ ret = sdw_update(s_rt->slave, addr, 0xFF, p_rt->ch_mask);
> >>>+ else
> >>>+ ret = sdw_update(s_rt->slave, addr, 0xFF, 0x0);
> >>>+
> >>>+ if (ret < 0)
> >>>+ dev_err(&s_rt->slave->dev,
> >>>+ "Slave chn_en reg write failed:%d port:%d",
> >>>+ ret, t_params->port_num);
> >>>+
> >>>+ return ret;
> >>>+}
> >>
> >>Add a clarification that this routine only sets the enable/disable bits in
> >>the relevant bank, the actual enable/disable is done with a bank switch.
> >
> >Isn't that something spec tells the reader? this is a SDW concept that we
> >program bank and then switch to have the effect, so why would i add comment
> >for that?
>
> To make sure people understand your code and follow the recommendation from
> the spec. It's legal to write directly in enable bits but it's not
> recommended at all. A standard spec is always interpreted in different ways,
> adding a comment helps.
will add a comment
--
~Vinod
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
