linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] ASoC: sgtl5000: Improve VAG power and mute control

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: <a86e4d6b-ed2c-d2f2-2974-6f00dc6ef68a@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 20:48:45 +0200
From:   Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>
To:     Oleksandr Suvorov <oleksandr.suvorov@...adex.com>
Cc:     Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Igor Opaniuk <igor.opaniuk@...adex.com>,
        Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] ASoC: sgtl5000: Improve VAG power and mute control

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.
> 
>> +
>>   /* 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.
> 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 :)
> 
> 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.

Czarek