On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:48:16PM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote:
+static struct device_node *snd_soc_find_phandle(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct device_node *node;
+
+ node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "usb-soc-be", 0);
Very nitpicky but this function possibly wants a _usb_ in the name, not
that it *super* matters with it being static. Or it could just be
inlined into the only user and not worry about the naming at all.
+/**
+ * snd_soc_usb_get_priv_data() - Retrieve private data stored
+ * @dev: device reference
+ *
+ * Fetch the private data stored in the USB SND SOC structure.
+ *
+ */
+void *snd_soc_usb_get_priv_data(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct snd_soc_usb *ctx;
+
+ ctx = snd_soc_find_usb_ctx(dev);
+ if (!ctx) {
+ /* Check if backend device */
+ mutex_lock(&ctx_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry(ctx, &usb_ctx_list, list) {
+ if (dev->of_node == ctx->dev->of_node) {
+ mutex_unlock(&ctx_mutex);
+ goto out;
+ }
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&ctx_mutex);
+ ctx = NULL;
+ }
This seems a lot more expensive than I'd expect for a get_priv_data
operation, usually it's just a container_of() or other constant time
pulling out of a pointer rather than a linked list walk - the sort of
thing that people put at the start of functions and do all the time.
If we need this I think it needs a name that's more clearly tied to the
use case.
I didn't actually find the user of this though?