[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5hy47c7jvd.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 17:13:42 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
Cc: "Haojian Zhuang" <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>,
"Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"Jaroslav Kysela" <perex@...ex.cz>,
"Daniel Mack" <daniel@...que.org>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] ALSA: ac97: add an ac97 bus
On Sat, 14 May 2016 11:50:50 +0200,
Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> >> +unsigned int ac97_bus_scan_one(struct ac97_controller *ac97,
> >> + int codec_num)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ac97_codec_device codec;
> >> + unsigned short vid1, vid2;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + codec.dev = *ac97->dev;
> >> + codec.num = codec_num;
> >> + ret = ac97->ops->read(&codec, AC97_VENDOR_ID1);
> >> + vid1 = (ret & 0xffff);
> >> + if (ret < 0)
> >> + return 0;
> >
> > Hmm. This looks pretty hackish and dangerous.
> You mean returning 0 even if the read failed, right ?
No, my concern is that it's creating a dummy codec object temporarily
on the stack just by copying some fields and calling the ops with it.
(And actually the current code may work wrongly because lack of
zero-clear of the object.)
IMO, a cleaner way would be to define the ops passed with both
controller and codec objects as arguments, and pass NULL codec here.
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists