[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5017F514.4030106@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:09:08 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
STEricsson_nomadik_linux@...t.st.com, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
arnd@...db.de, olalilja@...oo.se, ola.o.lilja@...ricsson.com,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] ASoC: dapm: If one widget fails, do not force all
subsequent widgets to fail too
On 31/07/12 15:56, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:45:40PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> If a list of widgets is provided and one of them fails to be added as
>> a control, the present semantics fail all subsequent widgets. A better
>> solution would be to only fail that widget, but pursue in attempting
>> to add the rest of the list.
>
> To reiterate, this is in *no* way urgent or even a bug fix.
It fixes sound in our driver.
Without this the card failes to instantiate.
>> dev_err(dapm->dev,
>> "ASoC: Failed to create DAPM control %s\n",
>> widget->name);
>> - ret = -ENOMEM;
>> - break;
>
> Indeed, removing the error return is a regression.
Isn't the return code incorrect? There are a multitude of reasons why
snd_soc_dapm_new_control() would fail. No-memory is just one of them, so
why do we force this probable lie?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists