On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:03 PM Kuninori Morimoto < kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> wrote:
From: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
It is easy to read code if it is cleanly using paired function/naming, like start <-> stop, register <-> unregister, etc, etc. But, current ALSA SoC code is very random, unbalance, not paired, etc. It is easy to create bug at the such code, and it will be difficult to debug.
soc-core.c has soc_bind_aux_dev(), but, there is no its paired soc_unbind_aux_dev(). This patch adds it.
Morimoto-san, I'm not sure it quite improves readability to just have list_del in unbind_aux_dev(). bin_aux_dev() does more than just adding to the card_aux_list(). So in fact, I think this change makes it look unbalanced. The existing code for aux_dev looks quite similar to what bind_dai_link() and remove_dai_link() do and they are quite intuitive.
Thanks, Ranjani
Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
sound/soc/soc-core.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index f8a5464..5e3b907 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -1527,6 +1527,11 @@ static int soc_probe_link_dais(struct snd_soc_card *card, return ret; }
+static void soc_unbind_aux_dev(struct snd_soc_component *component) +{
list_del(&component->card_aux_list);+}
static int soc_bind_aux_dev(struct snd_soc_card *card, struct snd_soc_aux_dev *aux_dev) { @@ -1578,7 +1583,7 @@ static void soc_remove_aux_devices(struct snd_soc_card *card) if (comp->driver->remove_order == order) { soc_remove_component(comp); /* remove it from the card's aux_comp_list */
list_del(&comp->card_aux_list);
soc_unbind_aux_dev(comp); } } }-- 2.7.4
Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel