On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:48:16PM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote:
+static struct device_node *snd_soc_find_phandle(struct device *dev) +{
- struct device_node *node;
- node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "usb-soc-be", 0);
Very nitpicky but this function possibly wants a _usb_ in the name, not that it *super* matters with it being static. Or it could just be inlined into the only user and not worry about the naming at all.
+/**
- snd_soc_usb_get_priv_data() - Retrieve private data stored
- @dev: device reference
- Fetch the private data stored in the USB SND SOC structure.
- */
+void *snd_soc_usb_get_priv_data(struct device *dev) +{
- struct snd_soc_usb *ctx;
- ctx = snd_soc_find_usb_ctx(dev);
- if (!ctx) {
/* Check if backend device */mutex_lock(&ctx_mutex);list_for_each_entry(ctx, &usb_ctx_list, list) {if (dev->of_node == ctx->dev->of_node) {mutex_unlock(&ctx_mutex);goto out;}}mutex_unlock(&ctx_mutex);ctx = NULL;- }
This seems a lot more expensive than I'd expect for a get_priv_data operation, usually it's just a container_of() or other constant time pulling out of a pointer rather than a linked list walk - the sort of thing that people put at the start of functions and do all the time. If we need this I think it needs a name that's more clearly tied to the use case.
I didn't actually find the user of this though?