Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:03:17 +0000 | From | Andrew Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/5] ASoC: dwc: Iterate over all channels |
| |
On 12/03/14 17:29, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 04:39:01PM +0000, Andrew Jackson wrote: > >> + /* Iterate over set of channels - independently controlled. >> + */ >> + do { >> + if (substream->stream == SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_PLAYBACK) { >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, TCR(ch_reg), >> + xfer_resolution); >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, TFCR(ch_reg), 0x02); >> + irq = i2s_read_reg(dev->i2s_base, IMR(ch_reg)); >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, IMR(ch_reg), irq & ~0x30); >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, TER(ch_reg), 1); >> + } else { >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, RCR(ch_reg), >> + xfer_resolution); >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, RFCR(ch_reg), 0x07); >> + irq = i2s_read_reg(dev->i2s_base, IMR(ch_reg)); >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, IMR(ch_reg), irq & ~0x03); >> + i2s_write_reg(dev->i2s_base, RER(ch_reg), 1); >> + } >> + } while (ch_reg-- > 0); > > The normal way to write an iteration would be with a for loop - why are > we not doing that?
The intention was to minimise the changes, excluding whitespace, between this version and the original. Also, it is a perfectly valid looping construct. I'm happy to rework it into a for loop.
> Also I see that you've not sent these as a single thread - please use > --thread. >
Andrew
| |