Re: [Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH v4 07/14] ASoC: SOF: Add DSP firmware logger support
On 2/20/19 11:44 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:07:27PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
- /* make sure count is <= avail */
- count = avail > count ? count : avail;
count = min(avail, count)?
as discussed in the last review, we didn't use min() since it adds a number of obscure warnings with sparse. I haven't found any time to look into this so for now left the code as is. Sparse is a useful tool for the address checks (topology/DMAs with _le32, __iomem, etc), the fewer warnings we get the better.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 02:18:01PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 2/20/19 11:44 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:07:27PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
- /* make sure count is <= avail */
- count = avail > count ? count : avail;
count = min(avail, count)?
as discussed in the last review, we didn't use min() since it adds a number of obscure warnings with sparse. I haven't found any time to look into this so for now left the code as is. Sparse is a useful tool for the address checks (topology/DMAs with _le32, __iomem, etc), the fewer warnings we get the better.
Shouldn't be sparse itself get fixed?
- /* make sure count is <= avail */
- count = avail > count ? count : avail;
count = min(avail, count)?
as discussed in the last review, we didn't use min() since it adds a number of obscure warnings with sparse. I haven't found any time to look into this so for now left the code as is. Sparse is a useful tool for the address checks (topology/DMAs with _le32, __iomem, etc), the fewer warnings we get the better.
Shouldn't be sparse itself get fixed?
Absolutely. I just don't have time to even look into it given all the feedback on the kernel patches I have to deal with :-)
participants (2)
-
Andy Shevchenko -
Pierre-Louis Bossart