linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] ASoC: codecs: Add WCD939x Codec driver

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:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:12:18 +0100
From:   neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@...cinc.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ASoC: codecs: Add WCD939x Codec driver

On 29/11/2023 14:46, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 28.11.2023 16:01, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> On 25/11/2023 13:07, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int wcd939x_io_init(struct snd_soc_component *component)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    snd_soc_component_write_field(component, WCD939X_ANA_BIAS,
>>>> +                      WCD939X_BIAS_ANALOG_BIAS_EN, 1);
>>> All of these values are BIT()s or 2-4 ORed BIT()s, can you check what they
>>> mean?
>>>
>>> Same for almost all other snd_soc_component_ write/modify functions
>>
>> It uses snd_soc_component_write_field() with is the same as
>> regmap_write_bits(REGISTER, REGISTER_MASK,
>>                    FIELD_PREP(REGISTER_MASK, value);
>>
>> So the 1 mean write in enable mask in this case, and mask is single bit,
>> read it exactly like if it was using FIELD_PREP(), but even for BITs.
>>
>> I did check every single snd_soc_component_write_field() so far to check
>> it matches.
>>
>> Or it's another question ?
> What I wanted to ask is whether it's possible to #define these magic
> values within these fields

OK, so most of writes are to boolean enable bits, I can use true/false
instead of 0 & 1 for those, would it be more readable ?

For the rest, those a integer values to a field, those are not bitmasks
and I do not have the definition of the values.

I did a full cleanup and tried to define as much as possible,
there were still lot of places where not defined bitmasks we used,
but there's still some integer values, but I think it's acceptable.

Neil

> 
> Konrad