On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:52:00AM +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Current ALSA SoC is directly using component->driver->ops->xxx,
> thus, it is deep nested, and makes code difficult to read,
> and is not good for encapsulation.
> This patch adds new snd_soc_component_pointer() and use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> +int snd_soc_component_pointer(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> + struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> +{
> + if (component->driver->ops &&
> + component->driver->ops->pointer)
> + return component->driver->ops->pointer(substream);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> @@ -1115,13 +1115,10 @@ static snd_pcm_uframes_t soc_pcm_pointer(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
> for_each_rtdcom(rtd, rtdcom) {
> component = rtdcom->component;
>
> - if (!component->driver->ops ||
> - !component->driver->ops->pointer)
> - continue;
> -
> + offset = snd_soc_component_pointer(component, substream);
> /* FIXME: use 1st pointer */
> - offset = component->driver->ops->pointer(substream);
> - break;
> + if (offset > 0)
> + break;
This doesn't feel like it is equivalent to the previous code, is
zero not a valid value for pointer to return?
Thanks,
Charles
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
