On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 09:08:41AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > Yes I thought about this but didn't know why the array was declared with an > implicit length. It's been that way since the first commit (which predates me) so I don't think it was a super thought through decision. > Unfortunately the zero is a legit value today, so we'd have to move all > existing values by one. Not sure if it's worth it. It's not hard. > Maybe an alternate way to fix this is to define snd_soc_dapm_max and check > if the ARRAY_SIZE of dapm_up_seq and dapm_down_seq match. That would trap > any changes in the enum that isn't reflected in the _seq look-up tables. We could do that and another thing together for maximum robustness!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
