[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171110050214.GM3187@localhost>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:32:14 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ALSA <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, Mark <broonie@...nel.org>,
Takashi <tiwai@...e.de>,
Pierre <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Shreyas NC <shreyas.nc@...el.com>, patches.audio@...el.com,
alan@...ux.intel.com,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>, plai@...eaurora.org,
Sudheer Papothi <spapothi@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] soundwire: Add Master registration
On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:14:16PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>
> On 19/10/17 04:03, Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> >+/**
> >+ * sdw_add_bus_master: add a bus Master instance
> >+ *
> >+ * @bus: bus instance
> >+ *
> >+ * Initializes the bus instance, read properties and create child
> >+ * devices.
> >+ */
>
> Some of the exported functions are missing kerneldocs.
> Is it something you plan to add in next version of the patcheset?
I though most were, will double check to be sure.
>
> >+int sdw_add_bus_master(struct sdw_bus *bus)
> >+{
> >+ int ret;
> >+
> >+ if (!bus->dev) {
> >+ pr_err("SoundWire bus has no device");
> >+ return -ENODEV;
> >+ }
> >+
> >+ mutex_init(&bus->bus_lock);
> >+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bus->slaves);
> >+
> >+ /*
> >+ * SDW is an enumerable bus, but devices can be powered off. So,
> >+ * they won't be able to report as present.
> >+ *
> >+ * Create Slave devices based on Slaves described in
> >+ * the respective firmware (ACPI/DT)
> >+ */
> >+
> >+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && bus->dev && ACPI_HANDLE(bus->dev))
> >+ ret = sdw_acpi_find_slaves(bus);
> >+ else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && bus->dev && bus->dev->of_node)
> >+ ret = sdw_of_find_slaves(bus);
> >+ else
> bus->dev is already checked in the start of the function, do we need to
> check once again ?
yes already fixed, thanks
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists