Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:12:18 +0100 | From | neil.armstrong@linaro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5] ASoC: codecs: Add WCD939x Codec driver |
| |
On 29/11/2023 14:46, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 28.11.2023 16:01, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> On 25/11/2023 13:07, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> + >>>> +static int wcd939x_io_init(struct snd_soc_component *component) >>>> +{ >>>> + snd_soc_component_write_field(component, WCD939X_ANA_BIAS, >>>> + WCD939X_BIAS_ANALOG_BIAS_EN, 1); >>> All of these values are BIT()s or 2-4 ORed BIT()s, can you check what they >>> mean? >>> >>> Same for almost all other snd_soc_component_ write/modify functions >> >> It uses snd_soc_component_write_field() with is the same as >> regmap_write_bits(REGISTER, REGISTER_MASK, >> FIELD_PREP(REGISTER_MASK, value); >> >> So the 1 mean write in enable mask in this case, and mask is single bit, >> read it exactly like if it was using FIELD_PREP(), but even for BITs. >> >> I did check every single snd_soc_component_write_field() so far to check >> it matches. >> >> Or it's another question ? > What I wanted to ask is whether it's possible to #define these magic > values within these fields
OK, so most of writes are to boolean enable bits, I can use true/false instead of 0 & 1 for those, would it be more readable ?
For the rest, those a integer values to a field, those are not bitmasks and I do not have the definition of the values.
I did a full cleanup and tried to define as much as possible, there were still lot of places where not defined bitmasks we used, but there's still some integer values, but I think it's acceptable.
Neil
> > Konrad
| |