On 2019-07-19 09:09, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 21:49, Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Ok, I'll add a comment to explain doubled 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.
By its nature, LAST_POWER_EVENT is actually a size of the array, but I
couldn't come up with a better name.
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 :)
Maybe :) I don't like first variant (ADC_POWER_EVENT+1): somewhen in
future, someone can add a new event to this enum and we've got a
possible situation with "out of array indexing".
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.
So will you be happy with the following variant?
...
ADC_POWER_EVENT,
LAST_POWER_EVENT = ADC_POWER_EVENT,
...
u16 mute_state[LAST_POWER_EVENT+1];
...
It's not about being happy - I'm a happy man in general ;p
As stated already, declaring _LAST_ as the "new option" is misleading
and not advised.
And yeah, [_LAST_ + 1] is usually the one you should go with.
Czarek
