Thanks Mark for taking time to review this patch. On 09/10/2019 17:35, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:51:08AM +0100, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:+static const u8 wsa881x_reg_readable[WSA881X_CACHE_SIZE] = {+static bool wsa881x_readable_register(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) +{ + return wsa881x_reg_readable[reg];u There's no bounds check and that array size is not...
I converted this now to a proper switch statement as other drivers do.
+static struct regmap_config wsa881x_regmap_config = { + .reg_bits = 32, + .val_bits = 8, + .cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE, + .reg_defaults = wsa881x_defaults, + .num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(wsa881x_defaults), + .max_register = WSA881X_MAX_REGISTER,...what regmap has as max_register. Uusually you'd render as a switch statement (as you did for volatile) and let the compiler figure out a sensible way to do the lookup.
Sorry, I did not get your point here. Are you saying that we can skip max_register in this regmap config ? Then how would max_register in regmap be set?
+static void wsa881x_init(struct wsa881x_priv *wsa881x) +{ + struct regmap *rm = wsa881x->regmap; + unsigned int val = 0; + + regmap_read(rm, WSA881X_CHIP_ID1, &wsa881x->version); + regcache_cache_only(rm, true); + regmap_multi_reg_write(rm, wsa881x_rev_2_0, + ARRAY_SIZE(wsa881x_rev_2_0)); + regcache_cache_only(rm, false);This looks broken, what is it supposed to be doing? It looks like it should be a register patch but it's not documented.
Yep, it makes sense to move this to patch, its done in new version.
+static const struct snd_kcontrol_new wsa881x_snd_controls[] = { + SOC_ENUM("Smart Boost Level", smart_boost_lvl_enum), + WSA881X_PA_GAIN_TLV("PA Gain", WSA881X_SPKR_DRV_GAIN, + 4, 0xC, 1, pa_gain),As covered in control-names.rst all volume controls should end in Volume.
Fixed this in next version.
+static void wsa881x_clk_ctrl(struct snd_soc_component *comp, bool enable) +{ + struct wsa881x_priv *wsa881x = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(comp); + + mutex_lock(&wsa881x->res_lock);What is this lock supposed to be protecting? As far as I can tell this function is the only place it is used and this function has exactly one caller which itself has only one caller which is a DAPM widget and hence needs no locking. It looks awfully like it should just be a widget itself, or inlined into the single caller.
This was done for temperature sensor reads which can happen in parallel. But for now I will remove it and add back once we add tsens support.
+static void wsa881x_bandgap_ctrl(struct snd_soc_component *comp, bool enable) +{ + struct wsa881x_priv *wsa881x = snd_soc_component_get_drvdata(comp);Similarly here.
This one was over done! its now removed in next version.
+static int32_t wsa881x_resource_acquire(struct snd_soc_component *comp, + bool enable) +{ + wsa881x_clk_ctrl(comp, enable); + wsa881x_bandgap_ctrl(comp, enable); + + return 0; +}There's no corresponding disables.
both wsa881x_clk_ctrl() and wsa881x_bandgap_ctrl() have corresponding disables in that functions.
thanks, srini
