[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878r0ribp2.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 09:42:01 +0200
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Shenghao Ding <shenghao-ding@...com>
Cc: <broonie@...nel.org>,
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
<lgirdwood@...il.com>,
<perex@...ex.cz>,
<pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
<13916275206@....com>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<liam.r.girdwood@...el.com>,
<bard.liao@...el.com>,
<yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
<kevin-lu@...com>,
<cameron.berkenpas@...il.com>,
<baojun.xu@...com>,
<soyer@....hu>,
<Baojun.Xu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ALSA: ASoc/tas2781: Fix wrong loading calibrated data sequence
On Fri, 03 May 2024 01:24:49 +0200,
Shenghao Ding wrote:
>
> Calibrated data will be set to default after loading DSP config params,
> which will cause speaker protection work abnormally. Reload calibrated
> data after loading DSP config params.
>
> 'Fixes: 0a0877812628 ("ASoc: tas2781: Fix spelling mistake "calibraiton"
> -> "calibration"")'
This usage of Fixes tag is utterly wrong: first off, drop the single
quote of the whole line. Moreover, the suggested commit looks very
dubious. It's merely a change to correct spelling, and this can't be
the culprit of the bug itself. Please point to the right commit.
> @@ -13,8 +13,8 @@
> // Author: Kevin Lu <kevin-lu@...com>
> //
>
> -#ifndef __TASDEVICE_DSP_H__
> -#define __TASDEVICE_DSP_H__
> +#ifndef __TAS2781_DSP_H__
> +#define __TAS2781_DSP_H__
This is unnecessary / related change, better to keep or do it in
another patch.
> @@ -1878,7 +1878,7 @@ int tas2781_load_calibration(void *context, char *file_name,
> {
> struct tasdevice_priv *tas_priv = (struct tasdevice_priv *)context;
> struct tasdevice *tasdev = &(tas_priv->tasdevice[i]);
> - const struct firmware *fw_entry;
> + const struct firmware *fw_entry = NULL;
Why is this needed? If a NULL initialization is a must (for some
warning fix or whatever), do it in an individual fix patch instead.
The rest changes look OK, but it's a bit hard to judge because the
code has too few comments, unfortunately...
thanks,
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists