On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 22:53 +0000, Opensource [Adam Thomson] wrote:
> On May 19, 2015 14:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> > > -static struct da7219_aad_pdata *da7219_aad_of_to_pdata(struct
> > > snd_soc_codec *codec)
> > > +static struct da7219_aad_pdata *da7219_aad_fw_to_pdata(struct
> > > snd_soc_codec *codec)
> > > {
> > > - struct device_node *np = codec->dev->of_node;
> > > - struct device_node *aad_np = of_find_node_by_name(np,
> > > "da7219_aad");
> > > + struct device *dev = codec->dev;
> > > + struct i2c_client *i2c = to_i2c_client(dev);
> > > + struct fwnode_handle *aad_np =
> > > + device_get_named_child_node(dev, "da7219_aad");
> >
> > I would suggest to do an assignment below...
> >
> > > struct da7219_aad_pdata *aad_pdata;
> > > - const char *of_str;
> > > - u32 of_val32;
> > > + const char *fw_str;
> > > + u32 fw_val32;
> > >
> >
> >
> > ...right here.
> > Same amount of LOC, but less difficult to see from where aad_np
> > comes.
> >
> > > if (!aad_np)
> > > return NULL;
> > >
>
> To be fair the allocation of 'aad_np' is only a few lines above so
> this really
> doesn't seem to make much difference in my opinion. It really
> shouldn't be hard
> for someone to spot where it's allocated.
Better to have it exactly before check. Just a readability and future
maintenance. (Someone might insert something in between, and a matter of
fact already did)
Though I agree this is minor.
>
> > > @@ -769,9 +768,9 @@ int da7219_aad_init(struct snd_soc_codec
> > > *codec)
> > > da7219->aad = da7219_aad;
> > > da7219_aad->codec = codec;
> > >
> > > - /* Handle any DT/platform data */
> > > - if ((codec->dev->of_node) && (da7219->pdata))
> > > - da7219->pdata->aad_pdata =
> > > da7219_aad_of_to_pdata(codec);
> > > + /* Handle any DT/ACPI/platform data */
> > > + if ((da7219->pdata) && (!da7219->pdata->aad_pdata))
> >
> > Redundant parens, twice.
>
> Not essential, but looks cleaner to me. Unless there's a real demand
> to change,
> I'd like to leave this as is.
It's really unusual pattern and doesn't add any value
Compare
if ((da7219->pdata) && (!da7219->pdata->aad_pdata))
to
if (da7219->pdata && !da7219->pdata->aad_pdata)
Latter looks cleaner.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
