The type of 'struct snd_ctl_elem_value.value.bytes.data' is 'unsigned char[512]'. In C language specification, address operation (&) for this type is just ignored, therefore:

struct snd_ctl_elem_value elem_value; printf("%p\n", elem_value.value.bytes.data); printf("%p\n", &elem_value.value.bytes.data);

These two evaluation have the same value, a pointer to the first element of the array.

This kind of address operation is not good for readers, because it easily brings confusions as an address operations to pointers. For example,

struct snd_kcontrol_new template; printf("%p\n", template.name); printf("%p\n", &template.name);

These two evaluation have the different value. The former is 'unsigned char *', while the latter is 'unsigned char **'.

This commit removes redundant address operation for array type variable to avoid misreading in reader side.

Cc: Takashi Sakamoto o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp Fixes: f831b055ecec ("ASoC: core: Add support for masking out parts of coefficient blocks") Signed-off-by: Takashi Sakamoto takashi.sakamoto@miraclelinux.com --- sound/soc/soc-ops.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-ops.c b/sound/soc/soc-ops.c index 500f98c..76b199b 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-ops.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-ops.c @@ -658,11 +658,11 @@ int snd_soc_bytes_get(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol, ucontrol->value.bytes.data[0] &= ~params->mask; break; case 2: - ((u16 *)(&ucontrol->value.bytes.data))[0] + ((u16 *)ucontrol->value.bytes.data)[0] &= cpu_to_be16(~params->mask); break; case 4: - ((u32 *)(&ucontrol->value.bytes.data))[0] + ((u32 *)ucontrol->value.bytes.data)[0] &= cpu_to_be32(~params->mask); break; default: