On Sun, 15 May 2016 23:29:27 +0200,
Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai <ti...@suse.de> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 14 May 2016 11:50:50 +0200,
> > Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> >> >> +unsigned int ac97_bus_scan_one(struct ac97_controller *ac97,
> >> >> + int codec_num)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct ac97_codec_device codec;
> >> >> + unsigned short vid1, vid2;
> >> >> + int ret;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + codec.dev = *ac97->dev;
> >> >> + codec.num = codec_num;
> >> >> + ret = ac97->ops->read(&codec, AC97_VENDOR_ID1);
> >> >> + vid1 = (ret & 0xffff);
> >> >> + if (ret < 0)
> >> >> + return 0;
> >> >
> >> > Hmm. This looks pretty hackish and dangerous.
> >> You mean returning 0 even if the read failed, right ?
> >
> > No, my concern is that it's creating a dummy codec object temporarily
> > on the stack just by copying some fields and calling the ops with it.
> > (And actually the current code may work wrongly because lack of
> > zero-clear of the object.)
> Ah yes, I remember now, the on-stack generated device, indeed ugly.
>
> > IMO, a cleaner way would be to define the ops passed with both
> > controller and codec objects as arguments, and pass NULL codec here.
> It's rather unusual to need both the device and its controller in bus
> operations. I must admit I have no better idea so far, so I'll try that just
> to
> see how it looks like, and let's see next ...
Thinking of this again, I wonder now why we need to pass the codec
object at all. It's the read/write ops via ac97, so we just need the
ac97_controller object and the address slot of the accessed codec?
Takashi
