On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 06:11:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:46:02PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
+static int ssth_acquire_irq(struct ssth_lib *ctx) +{
- if (request_threaded_irq(ctx->irq, ssth_interrupt,
NULL, IRQF_SHARED, KBUILD_MODNAME, ctx)) {dev_err(ctx->dev, "unable to grab threaded IRQ %d, disabling device\n", ctx->irq);return -1;Don't discard the return code, pass it back. I'm pretty sure the error wasn't -EPERM anyway. Though...
yes, we will fix it
- /* initialize IPC */
- ctx->ipc = ssth_ipc_init(ctx->dev, ctx);
- if (ctx->ipc == NULL)
ret = -ENODEV;- /* Now let's request the IRQ */
- ssth_acquire_irq(ctx);
..of course we ignore errors anyway. Why not just inline this?
thats not right, we should do that...
+int ssth_dsp_free0(struct ssth_lib *dsp) +{
- int ret = 0;
- dev_dbg(dsp->dev, "In %s\n", __func__);
- ssth_ipc_int_disable(dsp);
- free_irq(dsp->irq, dsp);
- ssth_ipc_free(dsp->ipc);
- ssth_disable_dsp_core(dsp);
- kfree(dsp);
- return ret;
+} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ssth_dsp_free0);
free0?
crap, will fix
+bool ssth_dsp_is_running(struct ssth_lib *ctx) +{
- bool ret = 0;
- mutex_lock(&ctx->sst_lock);
- ret = (ctx->sst_state == SST_DSP_RUNNING) ? 1 : 0;
- mutex_unlock(&ctx->sst_lock);
How does this get used? The state could change immediately after returning. Also no need for the ternery operator there, logic operations generate logic results anyway.
yes you are right, we should hold the lock and check, will fix this
Thanks