Hi Shengjiu,
On 4/8/19 9:54 PM, S.j. Wang wrote:
Hi Gustavo
On 4/8/19 4:28 AM, S.j. Wang wrote:
case ESAI_HCKT_EXTAL and case ESAI_HCKR_EXTAL should be
independent of
each other, so replace fall-through with break.
If this is correct, then you should use the following "Fixes" tag instead, which is the one that introduced the bug:
Fixes: 43d24e76b698 ("ASoC: fsl_esai: Add ESAI CPU DAI driver")
Fixes: 16bbeb2b43c3 ("ASoC: fsl_esai: Mark expected switch fall-through")
^^^^because this didn't change any functionality.
Ok, this will be updated.
Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang shengjiu.wang@nxp.com
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c index c7410bbfd2af..bad0dfed6b68 100644 --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ static int fsl_esai_set_dai_sysclk(struct
snd_soc_dai *dai, int clk_id,
break; case ESAI_HCKT_EXTAL: ecr |= ESAI_ECR_ETI;Also, you should use a simple assignment operator "=" instead of "|=" in both cases.
The result is same for "=" and "|=", because there is "ecr = 0" in beginning of This function.
Following that same logic, then why not use "+=" instead?
The point is: is "|=" or any other assignment operator other than "=" necessary? The answer in this case is: no, it is not. So, go for the simple one and avoid any unnecessary confusion.
Also, there is no need for versioning a patch for it's first revision. If you receive feedback on a patch and are asked to update it, then you do need to version the patches that you re-send.
Thanks -- Gustavo
/* fall through */
break; case ESAI_HCKR_EXTAL: ecr |= esai_priv->synchronous ? ESAI_ECR_ETI : ESAI_ECR_ERI; break;Thanks
Gustavo