> -----Original Message----- > From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:l...@metafoo.de] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:32 AM > To: Arun Shamanna Lakshmi > Cc: lgirdw...@gmail.com; broo...@kernel.org; > swar...@wwwdotorg.org; pe...@perex.cz; ti...@suse.de; alsa- > de...@alsa-project.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Songhee Baek > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Add support for multi register mux > > On 04/03/2014 10:11 PM, Arun Shamanna Lakshmi wrote: > [...] > >> Here as well, default for bit_pos should be 0. > > > > This means when 'None' of the options are selected, by default, it > > enumerates to 0. Since we are using __ffs, BIT(0) of Register-0 also > > enumerates to 0. That's the reason why I used just ffs in the first place. > > Let me know your opinion. My value table looks like below. > > > > #define MUX_VALUE(npart, nbit) (nbit + 32 * npart) > > static const int mux_values[] = { > > 0, > > MUX_VALUE(0, 0), > > . > > . > > . > > MUX_VALUE(0, 31), > > /* above inputs are for part0 mux */ > > MUX_VALUE(1, 0), > > . > > . > > . > > MUX_VALUE(1, 31), > > /* above inputs are for part1 mux */ > > MUX_VALUE(2, 0), > > . > > . > > . > > MUX_VALUE(2, 31), > > /* above inputs are for part2 mux */ > > }; > > Ok, so having none of the input selected should be a valid user selectable > option?
Yes. If 'None' is selected, it goes and clears the register. So, can we have ffs( ) instead of __ffs( ) ? It would fix this case. - Arun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/