On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:33:00PM +0000, James Ogletree wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 2023, at 5:30 AM, Charles Keepax <ckeepax@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 07:10:28PM +0000, James Ogletree wrote:
> >> +
> >> +static int cs40l50_pseq_write(struct cs40l50_private *cs40l50, u32 addr, u32 data)
> >> +{
> >> +
> >> +static int cs40l50_owt_upload(struct cs40l50_private *cs40l50, s16 *in_data, u32 in_data_nibbles)
> >> +{
> >
> > These pseq and OWT bits, could they be shared with l26?
> > Definitely worth syncing with those guys, my assumption is the
> > wavetable/pseq won't have changed much and it might be nice to
> > factor these bits out into some library code that both drivers
> > can use.
>
> The pseq code most certainly can, likely the OWT code, perhaps others. I assume it is
> acceptable to move some of these functions to a library in this patch set, even though this is
> the only driver utilizing them as far as mainline is concerned? In other words, we shouldn’t
> wait for one of L26 or L50 drivers to be accepted before splitting off the common code as part
> of the others’ patchset? I’m probably overcomplicating; just want to be sure on the process here.
>
> Everything else in your review will be fixed in V4. Thank you.
>
I think this makes sense to do now, just need to make sure the
next series of L26 is synced up to it.
Thanks,
Charles
