Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] ALSA: ctxfi: initialized snd_card
From: Sudip Mukherjee
Date: Tue Sep 23 2014 - 11:09:38 EST
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 04:09:08PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:30:21 +0530,
> Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> >
> > initialized the reference of snd_card which was added to the various
> > structures through the previous patch of the series.
> > these references of snd_card will be used in a later patch to convert
> > the pr_* macros to dev_*
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > sound/pci/ctxfi/ctamixer.c | 2 ++
> > sound/pci/ctxfi/ctatc.c | 1 +
> > sound/pci/ctxfi/ctdaio.c | 1 +
> > sound/pci/ctxfi/ctsrc.c | 2 ++
> > 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctamixer.c b/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctamixer.c
> > index fed6e6a..dc89fad 100644
> > --- a/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctamixer.c
> > +++ b/sound/pci/ctxfi/ctamixer.c
> > @@ -314,6 +314,7 @@ int amixer_mgr_create(void *hw, struct amixer_mgr **ramixer_mgr)
> >
> > amixer_mgr->get_amixer = get_amixer_rsc;
> > amixer_mgr->put_amixer = put_amixer_rsc;
> > + amixer_mgr->card = ((struct hw *)hw)->card;
>
> Overall the patches became obviously better now, but unfortunately
> we still see such rather stupid cast occasionally. I guess you
> considered reducing these?
frankly speaking , i did not think to reduce that untill now that u mentioned it.
I was thinking it was there for a reason and will be used like the private_data,
but i was not able to think of any reason as everywhere it is struct hw.
thanks
sudip
>
> Then start thinking from the scratch: why the cast is needed at all?
> It's because the driver uses the void pointer for hw objects. Why?
> The driver author tried to separate the code abstraction, and thought
> to pass the arbitrary hw object.
>
> Such abstraction would be good if really different objects are
> handled. OTOH, in ctxfi case, we know that we deal with only a single
> hw type. So, using void * for hw object is rather error-prone, and
> the code safety can be even improved by strict typing.
>
> That said, replacing void * with struct hw * or such would make things
> not only easier but also safer.
>
> BTW, the patch 5 is basically independent from the rest, and it's good
> enough, so I applied it now. At the next respin, please drop that
> patch from your series.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/