On 2019-07-18 20:42, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-07-18 11:02, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
+enum {
+ HP_POWER_EVENT,
+ DAC_POWER_EVENT,
+ ADC_POWER_EVENT,
+ LAST_POWER_EVENT
+};
+
+static u16 mute_mask[] = {
+ SGTL5000_HP_MUTE,
+ SGTL5000_OUTPUTS_MUTE,
+ SGTL5000_OUTPUTS_MUTE
+};
If mute_mask[] is only used within common handler, you may consider
declaring const array within said handler instead (did not check that
myself).
Otherwise, simple comment for the second _OUTPUTS_MUTE should suffice -
its not self explanatory why you doubled that mask.
+
/* sgtl5000 private structure in codec */
struct sgtl5000_priv {
int sysclk; /* sysclk rate */
@@ -137,8 +157,109 @@ struct sgtl5000_priv {
u8 micbias_voltage;
u8 lrclk_strength;
u8 sclk_strength;
+ u16 mute_state[LAST_POWER_EVENT];
};
When I spoke of LAST enum constant, I did not really had this specific
usage in mind.
From design perspective, _LAST_ does not exist and should never be
referred to as "the next option" i.e.: new enum constant.
That is way preferred usage is:
u16 mute_state[ADC_POWER_EVENT+1;
-or-
u16 mute_state[LAST_POWER_EVENT+1];
Maybe I'm just being radical here :)
Czarek
Forgive me for double posting. Comment above is targeted towards:
>> +enum {
>> + HP_POWER_EVENT,
>> + DAC_POWER_EVENT,
>> + ADC_POWER_EVENT,
>> + LAST_POWER_EVENT
>> +};
as LAST_POWER_EVENT is not assigned explicitly to ADC_POWER_EVENT and
thus generates implicit "new option" of value 3.
Czarek
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
