linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] ASoC: simple-card: add asoc_simple_card_fmt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5405AAB0.5030000@ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:32:00 +0300
From:	Jyri Sarha <jsarha@...com>
To:	Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@...e.fr>,
	Varka Bhadram <varkabhadram@...il.com>
CC:	Xiubo Li <Li.Xiubo@...escale.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
	<perex@...ex.cz>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <tiwai@...e.de>,
	<andrew@...n.ch>, <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] ASoC: simple-card: add asoc_simple_card_fmt_master()
 to simplify the code.

On 09/02/2014 02:09 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:12:40 +0530
> Varka Bhadram <varkabhadram@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> +	switch (((np == bitclkmaster) << 4) | (np == framemaster)) {
>>>>> +	case 0x11:
>>>>> +		return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS;
>>>>> +	case 0x10:
>>>>> +		return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFM;
>>>>> +	case 0x01:
>>>>> +		return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS;
>>>>> +	default:
>>>>> +		return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	/* Shouldn't be here */
>>>>> +	return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +}
>>>> It will be nice if we declare the switch case numbers as macros (specific name)...
>>> I don't see which macros: the values are just 2 booleans.
>>>
>> I am talking about 0x11, 0x10, 0x01 values.. We can give any understandable
>> names to those...?
>
> #define TRUE_TRUE 0x11
> #define TRUE_FALSE 0x10
> #define FALSE_TRUE 0x01
>
> or
>
> 	case ((TRUE << 4) | TRUE:
> 		...
> 	case ((TRUE << 4) | FALSE:
> 		...
> 	case ((FALSE << 4) | TRUE:
> 		...
>

I would vote for this. Even over the options suggested by Takashi, but 
then again this really a matter of taste.

The fact that frame and bit-clock master boolean values are bundled into 
a single "enum" field, instead of two dedicated bits, makes all options 
bit inconvenient.

Best regards,
Jyri


--
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/