From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752826AbaINTuS (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:50:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:60283 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752728AbaINTuQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2014 15:50:16 -0400 Message-ID: <5415E428.10101@cogentembedded.com> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:53:28 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: Cogent Embedded User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jianqun , Jianqun , heiko@sntech.de, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, perex@perex.cz, tiwai@suse.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org CC: huangtao@rock-chips.com, cf@rock-chips.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ASoC: rockchip-i2s: fix registers' property of rockchip i2s controller References: <1410568723-21559-1-git-send-email-jay.xu@rock-chips.com> <1410568932-21823-1-git-send-email-jay.xu@rock-chips.com> <5414AFA6.9060904@cogentembedded.com> <5414FD6E.2050006@rock-chips.com> In-Reply-To: <5414FD6E.2050006@rock-chips.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 09/14/2014 06:29 AM, Jianqun wrote: >>> Reference rockchip I2S controller TRM, modify some registers' property >>> I2S_FIFOLR: read / write, but not volatile, not precious >>> I2S_INTSR: read / write >>> I2S_CLR: volatile, register value will be cleared by read >>> Test on RK3288 with max98090. >>> Signed-off-by: Jianqun Xu >>> --- >>> sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> diff --git a/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c b/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c >>> index 1b9b404..6595383 100644 >>> --- a/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c >>> +++ b/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c >> [...] >>> @@ -385,8 +387,6 @@ static bool rockchip_i2s_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) >>> static bool rockchip_i2s_precious_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) >>> { >>> switch (reg) { >>> - case I2S_FIFOLR: >>> - return true; >>> default: >>> return false; >>> } >> Shouldn't this be folded into simple *return* false now? > That is more reasonable, thank you. Moreover, this function may be completely eliminated. WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 22:53:28 +0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] ASoC: rockchip-i2s: fix registers' property of rockchip i2s controller In-Reply-To: <5414FD6E.2050006@rock-chips.com> References: <1410568723-21559-1-git-send-email-jay.xu@rock-chips.com> <1410568932-21823-1-git-send-email-jay.xu@rock-chips.com> <5414AFA6.9060904@cogentembedded.com> <5414FD6E.2050006@rock-chips.com> Message-ID: <5415E428.10101@cogentembedded.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 09/14/2014 06:29 AM, Jianqun wrote: >>> Reference rockchip I2S controller TRM, modify some registers' property >>> I2S_FIFOLR: read / write, but not volatile, not precious >>> I2S_INTSR: read / write >>> I2S_CLR: volatile, register value will be cleared by read >>> Test on RK3288 with max98090. >>> Signed-off-by: Jianqun Xu >>> --- >>> sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> diff --git a/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c b/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c >>> index 1b9b404..6595383 100644 >>> --- a/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c >>> +++ b/sound/soc/rockchip/rockchip_i2s.c >> [...] >>> @@ -385,8 +387,6 @@ static bool rockchip_i2s_volatile_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) >>> static bool rockchip_i2s_precious_reg(struct device *dev, unsigned int reg) >>> { >>> switch (reg) { >>> - case I2S_FIFOLR: >>> - return true; >>> default: >>> return false; >>> } >> Shouldn't this be folded into simple *return* false now? > That is more reasonable, thank you. Moreover, this function may be completely eliminated. WBR, Sergei