Thanks Mark for taking time to review this patch.
On 09/10/2019 17:35, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:51:08AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
+static const u8 wsa881x_reg_readable[WSA881X_CACHE_SIZE] = {
+static bool wsa881x_readable_register(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) +{
- return wsa881x_reg_readable[reg];
u There's no bounds check and that array size is not...
I converted this now to a proper switch statement as other drivers do.
+static struct regmap_config wsa881x_regmap_config = {
- .reg_bits = 32,
- .val_bits = 8,
- .cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
- .reg_defaults = wsa881x_defaults,
- .num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(wsa881x_defaults),
- .max_register = WSA881X_MAX_REGISTER,
...what regmap has as max_register. Uusually you'd render as a switch statement (as you did for volatile) and let the compiler figure out a sensible way to do the lookup.
Sorry, I did not get your point here.
Are you saying that we can skip max_register in this regmap config ? Then how would max_register in regmap be set?
+static void wsa881x_init(struct wsa881x_priv *wsa881x) +{
- struct regmap *rm = wsa881x->regmap;
- unsigned int val = 0;
- regmap_read(rm, WSA881X_CHIP_ID1, &wsa881x->version);
- regcache_cache_only(rm, true);
- regmap_multi_reg_write(rm, wsa881x_rev_2_0,
ARRAY_SIZE(wsa881x_rev_2_0));- regcache_cache_only(rm, false);
This looks broken, what is it supposed to be doing? It looks like it should be a register patch but it's not documented.
Yep, it makes sense to move this to patch, its done in new version.
+static const struct snd_kcontrol_new wsa881x_snd_controls[] = {
- SOC_ENUM("Smart Boost Level", smart_boost_lvl_enum),
- WSA881X_PA_GAIN_TLV("PA Gain", WSA881X_SPKR_DRV_GAIN,
4, 0xC, 1, pa_gain),As covered in control-names.rst all volume controls should end in Volume.
Fixed this in next version.
+static void wsa881x_clk_ctrl(struct snd_soc_component *comp, bool enable) +{
- struct wsa881x_priv *wsa881x = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(comp);
- mutex_lock(&wsa881x->res_lock);
What is this lock supposed to be protecting? As far as I can tell this function is the only place it is used and this function has exactly one caller which itself has only one caller which is a DAPM widget and hence needs no locking. It looks awfully like it should just be a widget itself, or inlined into the single caller.
This was done for temperature sensor reads which can happen in parallel. But for now I will remove it and add back once we add tsens support.
+static void wsa881x_bandgap_ctrl(struct snd_soc_component *comp, bool enable) +{
- struct wsa881x_priv *wsa881x = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(comp);
Similarly here.
This one was over done! its now removed in next version.
+static int32_t wsa881x_resource_acquire(struct snd_soc_component *comp,
bool enable)+{
- wsa881x_clk_ctrl(comp, enable);
- wsa881x_bandgap_ctrl(comp, enable);
- return 0;
+}
There's no corresponding disables.
both wsa881x_clk_ctrl() and wsa881x_bandgap_ctrl() have corresponding disables in that functions.
thanks, srini