[alsa-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ASoC: max98090: Enforce correct device sequencing when configuring a new

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 04:15:45PM -0700, yang.a.fang at intel.com wrote:

> +static int max98090_shdn_event(struct snd_soc_dapm_widget *w,
> +				 struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol, int event)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_codec *codec = snd_soc_dapm_to_codec(w->dapm);
> +	struct max98090_priv *max98090 = snd_soc_codec_get_drvdata(codec);
> +
> +	if (event & SND_SOC_DAPM_POST_PMU)
> +		max98090->shdn_pending = TRUE;

TRUE?  Please use normal C99 booleans like we normally do in the kernel.

> +static void max98090_seq_notifier(struct snd_soc_dapm_context *dapm,
> +	enum snd_soc_dapm_type event, int subseq, bool power_up)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_codec *codec = snd_soc_dapm_to_codec(dapm);
> +	struct max98090_priv *max98090 = snd_soc_codec_get_drvdata(codec);
> +
> +	if (max98090->shdn_pending && power_up) {
> +		snd_soc_update_bits(codec, M98090_REG_DEVICE_SHUTDOWN,
> +				M98090_SHDNN_MASK, 0);
> +		msleep(40);
> +		snd_soc_update_bits(codec, M98090_REG_DEVICE_SHUTDOWN,
> +				M98090_SHDNN_MASK, M98090_SHDNN_MASK);
> +		max98090->shdn_pending = FALSE;
> +	}
> +}

Why did you change the API for this?  As far as I can tell power_up is
redundant here, we already know we're powering things up because we got
a _PMU event, the main effect here appears to be to just run this at the
next sequence point after we've powered up a widget with a shutdown
event.  The general concept with the seq_notifier is that we record
things we need to do in the per-widget events and then implement them in
the seq_notifier and I'm not seeing anything else going on here.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20150807/d3c502da/attachment.sig>