Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] ASoC: tas2781: Add tas2781 driver

[Christophe JAILLET]

Le 28/05/2023 à 00:35, Shenghao Ding a écrit :
> Create tas2781 driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shenghao Ding <13916275206-7R9yAhoRP9E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
> Changes in v4:
>    - fixed issue| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>      | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305192322.gBZ4JIyr-lkp-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>   Changes to be committed:
> 	modified:   sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig
> 	modified:   sound/soc/codecs/Makefile
> 	new file:   sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-comlib.c
> 	new file:   sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-i2c.c
> ---
>   sound/soc/codecs/Kconfig          |  25 +
>   sound/soc/codecs/Makefile         |   6 +
>   sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-comlib.c | 581 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>   sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-i2c.c    | 736 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   4 files changed, 1348 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-comlib.c
>   create mode 100644 sound/soc/codecs/tas2781-i2c.c

[...]

> +static void tasdev_dsp_prog_blk_remove(struct tasdevice_prog *prog)
> +{
> +	struct tasdevice_data *im;
> +	struct tasdev_blk *blk;
> +	unsigned int nr_blk;

Purely a mater of style, but 'i' is more common, and less verbose.
(same in tasdev_dsp_cfg_blk_remove() below)

> +
> +	if (!prog)
> +		return;
> +
> +	im = &(prog->dev_data);
> +
> +	if (!im->dev_blks)
> +		return;
> +
> +	for (nr_blk = 0; nr_blk < im->nr_blk; nr_blk++) {
> +		blk = &(im->dev_blks[nr_blk]);
> +		kfree(blk->data);
> +	}
> +	kfree(im->dev_blks);
> +}

[...]

> +static int tasdevice_set_profile_id(struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol,
> +		struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol)
> +{
> +	struct snd_soc_component *codec = snd_soc_kcontrol_component(kcontrol);
> +	struct tasdevice_priv *tas_priv = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(codec);
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	if (tas_priv->rcabin.profile_cfg_id !=
> +		ucontrol->value.integer.value[0]) {
> +		tas_priv->rcabin.profile_cfg_id =
> +			ucontrol->value.integer.value[0];
> +		ret = 0;

So 'ret' is always 0?
Is it what is expected?
If so, removing 'ret' and having return 0; below, looks fine.

Stop reading here. There seems to be a mix-up with patch 4/6.

CJ