[alsa-devel] [PATCH RESEND] ASoC: Remove impossible case from wm8994_hw_params
We set hw_params callback for wm8994_aif3_dai_ops to wm8994_aif3_hw_params. Thus no need to check wm8994-aif3 in wm8994_hw_params.
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin axel.lin@gmail.com --- sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c | 10 ---------- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c index 16542de..68e769e 100644 --- a/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/wm8994.c @@ -2235,7 +2235,6 @@ static int wm8994_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, struct snd_soc_dai *dai) { struct snd_soc_codec *codec = dai->codec; - struct wm8994 *control = codec->control_data; struct wm8994_priv *wm8994 = snd_soc_codec_get_drvdata(codec); int aif1_reg; int aif2_reg; @@ -2278,15 +2277,6 @@ static int wm8994_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, dev_dbg(codec->dev, "AIF2 using split LRCLK\n"); } break; - case 3: - switch (control->type) { - case WM1811: - case WM8958: - aif1_reg = WM8958_AIF3_CONTROL_1; - break; - default: - return 0; - } default: return -EINVAL; }
2011/10/6 Axel Lin axel.lin@gmail.com:
We set hw_params callback for wm8994_aif3_dai_ops to wm8994_aif3_hw_params. Thus no need to check wm8994-aif3 in wm8994_hw_params.
Signed-off-by: Axel Lin axel.lin@gmail.com
hi Mark, Seems this patch is missed. This resend should be appliable to current code.
Thanks, Axel
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:00:55PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
Seems this patch is missed. This resend should be appliable to current code.
I'll have ignored the original patch because it was flagged as a resend, there's no point in resending patches unless there's been some noticable interval.
2011/10/11 Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:00:55PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
Seems this patch is missed. This resend should be appliable to current code.
I'll have ignored the original patch because it was flagged as a resend, there's no point in resending patches unless there's been some noticable interval.
It's because the original one does not applied to your tree. https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/5/235 So. I resent the patch. ( Maybe I should just mark it as v2 )
Regards, Axel
participants (2)
-
Axel Lin
-
Mark Brown