| Message ID | 87r25z2ihd.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ASoC: cleanup patches for soc-core | expand |
On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 10:28 +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> > > snd_soc_dapm_new_controls() registers controls by using > for(... i < num; ...). It means if widget was NULL, num should be > zero. > Thus, we don't need to check about widget pointer. > > Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> > --- > sound/soc/soc-core.c | 22 +++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > index 6347d65..bdd6a2e 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > @@ -1264,16 +1264,14 @@ static int soc_probe_component(struct > snd_soc_card *card, > > soc_init_component_debugfs(component); > > - if (component->driver->dapm_widgets) { > - ret = snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(dapm, > + ret = snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(dapm, > component->driver- > >dapm_widgets, > component->driver- > >num_dapm_widgets); > > - if (ret != 0) { > - dev_err(component->dev, > - "Failed to create new controls %d\n", > ret); > - goto err_probe; > - } > + if (ret != 0) { > + dev_err(component->dev, > + "Failed to create new controls %d\n", ret); > + goto err_probe; > } > > for_each_component_dais(component, dai) { > @@ -1989,13 +1987,11 @@ static int snd_soc_instantiate_card(struct > snd_soc_card *card) > INIT_WORK(&card->deferred_resume_work, soc_resume_deferred); > #endif > > - if (card->dapm_widgets) > - snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card- > >dapm_widgets, > - card->num_dapm_widgets); > + snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->dapm_widgets, > + card->num_dapm_widgets); Should the return value be checked here? > > - if (card->of_dapm_widgets) > - snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card- > >of_dapm_widgets, > - card->num_of_dapm_widgets); > + snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_widgets, > + card->num_of_dapm_widgets); and here? Thanks, Ranjani
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 09:35:58PM -0700, Ranjani Sridharan wrote: > On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 10:28 +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > - if (card->dapm_widgets) > > - snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card- > > >dapm_widgets, > > - card->num_dapm_widgets); > > + snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->dapm_widgets, > > + card->num_dapm_widgets); > Should the return value be checked here? Preexisting bug but yes.
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c index 6347d65..bdd6a2e 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c @@ -1264,16 +1264,14 @@ static int soc_probe_component(struct snd_soc_card *card, soc_init_component_debugfs(component); - if (component->driver->dapm_widgets) { - ret = snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(dapm, + ret = snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(dapm, component->driver->dapm_widgets, component->driver->num_dapm_widgets); - if (ret != 0) { - dev_err(component->dev, - "Failed to create new controls %d\n", ret); - goto err_probe; - } + if (ret != 0) { + dev_err(component->dev, + "Failed to create new controls %d\n", ret); + goto err_probe; } for_each_component_dais(component, dai) { @@ -1989,13 +1987,11 @@ static int snd_soc_instantiate_card(struct snd_soc_card *card) INIT_WORK(&card->deferred_resume_work, soc_resume_deferred); #endif - if (card->dapm_widgets) - snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->dapm_widgets, - card->num_dapm_widgets); + snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->dapm_widgets, + card->num_dapm_widgets); - if (card->of_dapm_widgets) - snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_widgets, - card->num_of_dapm_widgets); + snd_soc_dapm_new_controls(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_widgets, + card->num_of_dapm_widgets); /* initialise the sound card only once */ if (card->probe) {