On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:32:02 +0000
"li.xi...@freescale.com" <li.xi...@freescale.com> wrote:
>
> > @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ struct simple_card_data {
> > unsigned int daifmt;
> > struct asoc_simple_dai cpu_dai;
> > struct asoc_simple_dai codec_dai;
> > - struct snd_soc_dai_link snd_link;
> > };
> >
> > static int __asoc_simple_card_dai_init(struct snd_soc_dai *dai,
> > @@ -246,7 +245,9 @@ static int asoc_simple_card_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev,
> > + sizeof(*priv) + sizeof(*dai_link),
>
> This is okey for me.
>
> Well, how about splitting the *priv and *dai_link into two separated
> memory blocks? As we can get the dai-link pointer via priv->snd_card.dai_link
> in other places.
>
> IMHO, then the code will be much more simplifier and readable.
It is just a simple optimization: less calls to memory allocation and
less code (also, less TLB reload?). I will add more comments.
--
Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! **
Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/
--
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/
