On 04/04/2014 09:34 AM, Arun Shamanna Lakshmi wrote:
-----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.
Yes, but you need to make sure to handle it also correctly in the put
handler, since all of the registers need to be written to 0 in that case.
--
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/
