[alsa-devel] [PATCH v2 04/13] ALSA: dice: cache stream formats at current mode of sampling transmission frequency

[Takashi Iwai]

On Tue, 01 May 2018 05:02:09 +0200,
Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On May 1 2018 00:10, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 08:50:23 +0200,
> > Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
> >>
> >> In former commits, proxy structure get members for cache of stream
> >> formats. This commit fills the cache with stream formats at current mode
> >> of sampling transmission frequency.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi at sakamocchi.jp>
> >> ---
> >>   sound/firewire/dice/dice-stream.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   sound/firewire/dice/dice.c        |  4 +++
> >>   sound/firewire/dice/dice.h        |  3 ++
> >>   3 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/sound/firewire/dice/dice-stream.c b/sound/firewire/dice/dice-stream.c
> >> index 928a255bfc35..2a9f0cd994a5 100644
> >> --- a/sound/firewire/dice/dice-stream.c
> >> +++ b/sound/firewire/dice/dice-stream.c
> >> @@ -30,6 +30,24 @@ const unsigned int snd_dice_rates[SND_DICE_RATES_COUNT] = {
> >>   	[6] = 192000,
> >>   };
> >>   +int snd_dice_stream_get_rate_mode(struct snd_dice *dice,
> >> unsigned int rate,
> >> +				  unsigned int *mode)
> >> +{
> >> +	int i;
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(snd_dice_rates); i++) {
> >> +		if (!(dice->clock_caps & BIT(i)))
> >> +			continue;
> >> +		if (snd_dice_rates[i] != rate)
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >> +		*mode = (i - 1) / 2;
> >
> > What if i=0?  It'll be a negative value?
> 
> Yes. But division by 2 to -1 results in 0 because in C language
> specification 'truncate toward zero'[1] is applied to discard
> fractional part. Then, the result is assigned to value of 'unsigned int'
> type. As a result:
> 
> 0: 32000/44100/48000
> 1: 88200/96000
> 2: 176400/192000
> 
> This is what I expect.
> 
> [1] footnote for '6.5.5 Multiplicative operators' clause in ISO/IEC 9899.

This is too tricky.  The result would change dramatically when i were
declared as unsigned.

And I can think of someone trying to change it unsigned because of the
comparison against ARRAY_SIZE() (we've got gcc warnings for that in
the past).

Please make either it more robust or put a proper comment.


thanks,

Takashi