linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND v13 04/10] ASoC: qcom: Add helper function to get dma control and lpaif handle

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]

Date:   Sun, 20 Feb 2022 00:15:12 +0530
From:   "Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (Temp)" <quic_srivasam@...cinc.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, <agross@...nel.org>,
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <bgoswami@...eaurora.org>,
        <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <judyhsiao@...omium.org>,
        <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <perex@...ex.cz>,
        <quic_plai@...cinc.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <rohitkr@...eaurora.org>, <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        <tiwai@...e.com>
CC:     Venkata Prasad Potturu <quic_potturu@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND v13 04/10] ASoC: qcom: Add helper function to get dma
 control and lpaif handle


On 2/18/2022 1:11 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Thanks for Your time Stephen!!!
> Quoting Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (2022-02-15 21:11:29)
>> On 2/15/2022 6:40 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Thanks for your time Stephen!!!
>>> Quoting Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu (2022-02-14 06:58:22)
>>>> Add support function to get dma control and lpaif handle to avoid
>>>> repeated code in platform driver
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <quic_srivasam@...cinc.com>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Venkata Prasad Potturu <quic_potturu@...cinc.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Venkata Prasad Potturu <quic_potturu@...cinc.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    sound/soc/qcom/lpass-platform.c | 113 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>    1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-platform.c b/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-platform.c
>>>> index a44162c..5d77240 100644
>>>> --- a/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-platform.c
>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/qcom/lpass-platform.c
>>>> @@ -177,6 +177,49 @@ static int lpass_platform_pcmops_close(struct snd_soc_component *component,
>>>>           return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +static void __lpass_get_lpaif_handle(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream,
>>> const?
>> Okay. will add const to substream pointer.
>>>> +                                    struct snd_soc_component *component,
>>> const?
>> Here const is giving compilation errors in below code.
> Ok
>
>>>> +                       l_id = pcm_data->dma_ch;
>>>> +                       l_dmactl = drvdata->rd_dmactl;
>>>> +               } else {
>>>> +                       l_dmactl = drvdata->wr_dmactl;
>>>> +                       l_id = pcm_data->dma_ch - v->wrdma_channel_start;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +               l_map = drvdata->lpaif_map;
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       case LPASS_DP_RX:
>>>> +               l_id = pcm_data->dma_ch;
>>>> +               l_dmactl = drvdata->hdmi_rd_dmactl;
>>>> +               l_map = drvdata->hdmiif_map;
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       default:
>>>> +               break;
>>>> +       }
>>>> +       if (dmactl)
>>>> +               *dmactl = l_dmactl;
>>>> +       if (id)
>>>> +               *id = l_id;
>>>> +       if (map)
>>>> +               *map = l_map;
>>> Why not 'return 0' here and return -EINVAL in the default case above? Then
>>> we can skip the checks for !map or !dmactl below and simply bail out if
>>> it failed with an error value.
>> Here the check is for input params. some users call for only damctl or
>> only map.
> Yes the check is to make sure there's a pointer to store the value into.
> I get that. The users are all internal to this driver though because
> the function is static. If the function returned an error because it
> couldn't find something then we wouldn't have to test the resulting
> pointers for success, instead we could check for a return value.
> Similarly, it may be clearer to have a single get for each item and then
> return a pointer from the function vs. passing it in to extract
> something. It may duplicate some code but otherwise the code would be
> clearer because we're getting one thing and can pass an error value
> through the pointer with PTR_ERR().

Okay. Agreed. But in initial review comments, asked to make common 
function for code readability,

and to avoid duplicate code.

Anyway will change accordingly and re post it.