4 Feb
2019
4 Feb
'19
5:11 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 09:08:41AM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
Yes I thought about this but didn't know why the array was declared with an implicit length.
It's been that way since the first commit (which predates me) so I don't think it was a super thought through decision.
Unfortunately the zero is a legit value today, so we'd have to move all existing values by one. Not sure if it's worth it.
It's not hard.
Maybe an alternate way to fix this is to define snd_soc_dapm_max and check if the ARRAY_SIZE of dapm_up_seq and dapm_down_seq match. That would trap any changes in the enum that isn't reflected in the _seq look-up tables.
We could do that and another thing together for maximum robustness!