From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ranjani Sridharan Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/28] ASoC: soc-core: don't check routes for snd_soc_dapm_add_routes() Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 21:41:04 -0700 Message-ID: <3849f0d37debfab976f0c5be6d9afe77965a43e0.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <871rxz3x7e.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <87o9132ih0.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by alsa1.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F006F8011B for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 06:41:07 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87o9132ih0.wl-kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" To: Kuninori Morimoto , Mark Brown Cc: Linux-ALSA List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 10:28 +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > From: Kuninori Morimoto > > snd_soc_dapm_add_routes() registers routes by using > for(... i < num; ...). If routes was NULL, num should be zero. > Thus, we don't need to check about route pointer. > > Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto > --- > sound/soc/soc-core.c | 17 +++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-core.c b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > index 7be8385..5b26a59 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/soc-core.c > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-core.c > @@ -1307,10 +1307,9 @@ static int soc_probe_component(struct > snd_soc_card *card, > snd_soc_add_component_controls(component, > component->driver->controls, > component->driver- > >num_controls); > - if (component->driver->dapm_routes) > - snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(dapm, > - component->driver->dapm_routes, > - component->driver- > >num_dapm_routes); > + snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(dapm, > + component->driver->dapm_routes, > + component->driver->num_dapm_routes); return value needs to be checked for all the snd_soc_dapm_add_routes() calls? Thanks, Ranjani > > list_add(&dapm->list, &card->dapm_list); > /* see for_each_card_components */ > @@ -2053,13 +2052,11 @@ static int snd_soc_instantiate_card(struct > snd_soc_card *card) > snd_soc_add_card_controls(card, card->controls, > card->num_controls); > > - if (card->dapm_routes) > - snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->dapm_routes, > - card->num_dapm_routes); > + snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->dapm_routes, > + card->num_dapm_routes); > > - if (card->of_dapm_routes) > - snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card- > >of_dapm_routes, > - card->num_of_dapm_routes); > + snd_soc_dapm_add_routes(&card->dapm, card->of_dapm_routes, > + card->num_of_dapm_routes); > > /* try to set some sane longname if DMI is available */ > snd_soc_set_dmi_name(card, NULL);