On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 10:28 +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
From: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
snd_soc_dapm_new_controls() registers controls by using for(... i < num; ...). It means if widget was NULL, num should be zero. Thus, we don't need to check about widget pointer.
Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com
sound/soc/soc-core.c | 22 +++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index 6347d65..bdd6a2e 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -1264,16 +1264,14 @@ static int soc_probe_component(struct snd_soc_card *card,
soc_init_component_debugfs(component);
- if (component->driver->dapm_widgets) {
ret = snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(dapm,
- ret = snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(dapm, component->driver-
dapm_widgets,
component->driver-num_dapm_widgets);
if (ret != 0) {dev_err(component->dev,"Failed to create new controls %d\n",ret);
goto err_probe;}
if (ret != 0) {
dev_err(component->dev,"Failed to create new controls %d\n", ret);goto err_probe;}
for_each_component_dais(component, dai) {
@@ -1989,13 +1987,11 @@ static int snd_soc_instantiate_card(struct snd_soc_card *card) INIT_WORK(&card->deferred_resume_work, soc_resume_deferred); #endif
- if (card->dapm_widgets)
snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card-dapm_widgets,
card->num_dapm_widgets);
- snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->dapm_widgets,
card->num_dapm_widgets);
Should the return value be checked here?
- if (card->of_dapm_widgets)
snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card-of_dapm_widgets,
card->num_of_dapm_widgets);
- snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_widgets,
card->num_of_dapm_widgets);
and here?
Thanks, Ranjani