Messages in this thread | | | From | Arun Shamanna Lakshmi <> | Date | Fri, 4 Apr 2014 00:34:28 -0700 | Subject | RE: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Add support for multi register mux |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Lars-Peter Clausen [mailto:lars@metafoo.de] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:32 AM > To: Arun Shamanna Lakshmi > Cc: lgirdwood@gmail.com; broonie@kernel.org; > swarren@wwwdotorg.org; perex@perex.cz; tiwai@suse.de; alsa- > devel@alsa-project.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Songhee Baek > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: dapm: Add support for multi register mux > > On 04/03/2014 10:11 PM, Arun Shamanna Lakshmi wrote: > [...] > >> Here as well, default for bit_pos should be 0. > > > > This means when 'None' of the options are selected, by default, it > > enumerates to 0. Since we are using __ffs, BIT(0) of Register-0 also > > enumerates to 0. That's the reason why I used just ffs in the first place. > > Let me know your opinion. My value table looks like below. > > > > #define MUX_VALUE(npart, nbit) (nbit + 32 * npart) > > static const int mux_values[] = { > > 0, > > MUX_VALUE(0, 0), > > . > > . > > . > > MUX_VALUE(0, 31), > > /* above inputs are for part0 mux */ > > MUX_VALUE(1, 0), > > . > > . > > . > > MUX_VALUE(1, 31), > > /* above inputs are for part1 mux */ > > MUX_VALUE(2, 0), > > . > > . > > . > > MUX_VALUE(2, 31), > > /* above inputs are for part2 mux */ > > }; > > Ok, so having none of the input selected should be a valid user selectable > option?
Yes. If 'None' is selected, it goes and clears the register. So, can we have ffs( ) instead of __ffs( ) ? It would fix this case.
- Arun
| |