On 2019-07-18 20:42, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
On 2019-07-18 11:02, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
+enum { + HP_POWER_EVENT, + DAC_POWER_EVENT, + ADC_POWER_EVENT, + LAST_POWER_EVENT +};
+static u16 mute_mask[] = { + SGTL5000_HP_MUTE, + SGTL5000_OUTPUTS_MUTE, + SGTL5000_OUTPUTS_MUTE +};
If mute_mask[] is only used within common handler, you may consider declaring const array within said handler instead (did not check that myself). Otherwise, simple comment for the second _OUTPUTS_MUTE should suffice - its not self explanatory why you doubled that mask.
/* sgtl5000 private structure in codec */ struct sgtl5000_priv { int sysclk; /* sysclk rate */ @@ -137,8 +157,109 @@ struct sgtl5000_priv { u8 micbias_voltage; u8 lrclk_strength; u8 sclk_strength; + u16 mute_state[LAST_POWER_EVENT]; };
When I spoke of LAST enum constant, I did not really had this specific usage in mind.
From design perspective, _LAST_ does not exist and should never be referred to as "the next option" i.e.: new enum constant. That is way preferred usage is: u16 mute_state[ADC_POWER_EVENT+1; -or- u16 mute_state[LAST_POWER_EVENT+1];
Maybe I'm just being radical here :)
Czarek
Forgive me for double posting. Comment above is targeted towards:
+enum {
- HP_POWER_EVENT,
- DAC_POWER_EVENT,
- ADC_POWER_EVENT,
- LAST_POWER_EVENT
+};
as LAST_POWER_EVENT is not assigned explicitly to ADC_POWER_EVENT and thus generates implicit "new option" of value 3.
Czarek