18 Feb
2014
18 Feb
'14
10:04 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:30:30AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:06:03PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
Hm, this is a bit confusing. For other functions in ASoC when we have a pair of functions with the _locked suffix and without the one with _locked takes the lock, the other one doesn't. E.g. snd_soc_update_bits_locked. Here we do it the other way around.
Yes, this is definitely confusing. The existing naming might not be the best but making things inconsistent isn't going to help the situation either.
Oops... sorry that was not intentional I will respin to correct this.
Thanks, Charles
Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel