On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:46:49 +0200, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:59:42AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 07:11:01 +0200, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 09:40:06AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:03:18 +0200, Vinod Koul wrote:
+config SOUNDWIRE_BUS
- tristate
- default SOUNDWIRE
Does it make sense to be tristate? Since CONFIG_SOUNDWIRE is a bool, the above would be also only either Y or N. If it's Y and others select M, it'll be still Y.
hmmm good point. I think would make sense to make SOUNDWIRE as tristate too, just like SOUND :)
It's one option. Another would be to simply drop the "default" line.
Okay good suggestion
- The match is done by comparing the mfg_id and part_id from the
- struct sdw_device_id. class_id is unused, as it is a placeholder
- in MIPI Spec.
- */
+static const struct sdw_device_id * +sdw_get_device_id(struct sdw_slave *slave, struct sdw_driver *drv) +{
- const struct sdw_device_id *id = drv->id_table;
- while (id && id->mfg_id) {
if (slave->id.mfg_id == id->mfg_id &&slave->id.part_id == id->part_id) {Please indentation properly.
what do you advise?
if (slave->id.mfg_id == id->mfg_id && slave->id.part_id == id->part_id) {would mean below one is at same indent. Some people use:
if (slave->id.mfg_id == id->mfg_id && slave->id.part_id == id->part_id) {Is it Documented anywhere...
This is a matter of taste. The latter is the way Emacs or indent does as default.
okay as vi user I will try to do above :)
--- a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h +++ b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h @@ -228,6 +228,13 @@ struct hda_device_id { unsigned long driver_data; };
+struct sdw_device_id {
- __u16 mfg_id;
- __u16 part_id;
- __u8 class_id;
- kernel_ulong_t driver_data;
Better to think of alignment.
sorry not quite clear, do you mind elaborating which ones to align?
kernel_ulong_t may be aligned to 4 or 8 bytes, depending on architecture, so there can be a hole between class_id and driver_data. It's not an ABI, so we don't have to care too much, but it's still something exposed, hence better to be conscious about alignment.
ah :) is that why hda is unsigned long :) Btw doesnt that cause compat issues, should we not do something like u64 here?
Oh, don't take the HD-audio case as a good reference, it's a bad guy ;) In the case of hda, the definition isn't really exposed.
The alignment doesn't matter whether it's unsigned long or kernel_ulong_t. It's a generic issue when you define some struct and expose it. In a safer side, you can put the enough pad bytes so that the long field is aligned in 8 bytes. Or use packed struct. Or you can just ignore and let it be so, but aware of the possible holes in your code.
Takashi