On 2019-08-08 05:30, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
[1] here you are just saying that the looping is really not required
so there are no tests at all...
[4] So shouldn't you split the two parts of this patch and separate
looping from not touching the data that's vendor-specific?
So, looping mainly gets used in _sets_, for _gets_ I've not seen a
live example, really - despite FW supporting such flow. However, I'd
like to verify before adding any looping, possibly by creating a
custom module myself. Followup to your point: existing looping was not
tested either.
So how about removing this looping first in the existing code and add
the needed changes in a second patch? wouldn't that help make the
changes more self-contained? A large part of your patch below has
indentation differences which make it hard to figure out what the new
approach is.
Agreed. Must say, didn't get you at first.
Update v4 has been sent and should do a better job at guiding the reader
through changes.
Czarek
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
