[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41f71476-4205-7982-9422-5d00e55c24d3@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:57:06 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jank@...ence.com,
srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, slawomir.blauciak@...el.com,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 33/40] soundwire: intel: Add basic power
management support
On 7/26/19 5:50 AM, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> On 2019-07-26 01:40, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> +static int intel_resume(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct sdw_intel *sdw;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + sdw = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +
>> + ret = intel_init(sdw);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "%s failed: %d", __func__, ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + sdw_cdns_enable_interrupt(&sdw->cdns);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#endif
>
> Suggestion: the local declaration + initialization via dev_get_drvdata()
> are usually combined.
yes, will do.
>
> Given the upstream declaration of _enable_interrupt, it does return
> error code/ success. Given current flow, if function gets to
> _enable_interrupt call, ret is already set to 0. Returning
> sdw_cds_enable_interrupt() directly would both simplify the definition
> and prevent status loss.
sounds good, will do, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists