On 5/20/19 7:42 PM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
Hi Pierre-Louis
if (component->driver->probe) {
ret = component->driver->probe(component);
...
(A) WARN(...)
}
(B) WARN(...)
(snip)
My take is that unless we can prove this is incorrect we leave it as is.
I think this commit is correct, thanks.
But, then, it sounds we need to check it even though without .prove ?
Sorry, I am not getting your question.
I don't have a trace of which codecs need this check, and I don't know
either if this check needs to be done in other cases than the
.probe(). Given all this, why would we try to move this WARN statement
outside of the .probe case? It seems like asking for trouble.
Sorry for bother you.
Actually, I'm planning to post soc-pcm.c / soc-core.c cleanup patch
because, it is not readable/understandable/balanceable,
thus, it is difficult to support multi CPU / multi Platform, etc, etc, etc...
Then, I can see below cade too many places.
if (component->driver->xxx)
ret = component->driver->xxx()
this kind of code is very verbose for me.
As one of this cleanup, I want to create very simple new_func like below.
Then, this WARN() here is not good match for this purpose.
In my understanding, this WARN() is effective
even though it doesn't have .probe
If so, code will be more simple.
int xxx_probe(component) {
if (component->driver->probe)
return component->driver->probe()
return 0;
}
...
ret = xxx_probe(component);
=> WARN();
...
I don't know how to help further. Doing this change will result in the
warning being thrown in cases where it wasn't before. and since no one
knows what this warning means in the first place, either we leave it or
we remove it, changing its location would be very odd.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
