Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ASoC: pcm179x: Split into core and SPI parts

[Johan Hovold]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 05:27:58PM +0100, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:26:56PM +0100, Jacob Siverskog wrote:
> >> The pcm179x family supports both SPI and I2C for configuration. This
> >> patch splits the driver into core and SPI parts, in preparation for
> >> I2C support.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jacob Siverskog <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >
> >> diff --git a/sound/soc/codecs/pcm179x-spi.c b/sound/soc/codecs/pcm179x-spi.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..5842add9
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/sound/soc/codecs/pcm179x-spi.c

> >> -static int pcm179x_spi_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> >> +int pcm179x_common_init(struct device *dev, struct regmap *regmap)
> >>  {
> >>       struct pcm179x_private *pcm179x;
> >>       int ret;
> >>
> >> -     pcm179x = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, sizeof(struct pcm179x_private),
> >> +     if (IS_ERR(regmap)) {
> >> +             ret = PTR_ERR(regmap);
> >> +             dev_err(dev, "Failed to register regmap: %d\n", ret);
> >> +             return ret;
> >> +     }
> >
> > This looks weird. I think you should check for error where you do the
> > allocation even if this means a four more lines of code in total.
> >
> 
> agree on that
> 
> >> +
> >> +     pcm179x = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct pcm179x_private),
> >>                               GFP_KERNEL);
> >>       if (!pcm179x)
> >>               return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> -     spi_set_drvdata(spi, pcm179x);
> >> -
> >> -     pcm179x->regmap = devm_regmap_init_spi(spi, &pcm179x_regmap);
> >> -     if (IS_ERR(pcm179x->regmap)) {
> >> -             ret = PTR_ERR(pcm179x->regmap);
> >> -             dev_err(&spi->dev, "Failed to register regmap: %d\n", ret);
> >> -             return ret;
> >> -     }
> >> +     pcm179x->regmap = regmap;
> >> +     dev_set_drvdata(dev, pcm179x);
> >>
> 
> snd_soc_codec_set_drvdata
> 
> Is this more "codec" like?

I'd say, only if you also add a codec probe callback and use it from
there. The other codec drivers appear to be consistent on that.

Thanks,
Johan