[PATCH] call-volume: Remove atom registered check

[PATCH] call-volume: Remove atom registered check

[Jeevaka Badrappan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]

---
 src/call-volume.c |    9 ---------
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/call-volume.c b/src/call-volume.c
index dd1be92..c448d32 100644
--- a/src/call-volume.c
+++ b/src/call-volume.c
@@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ void ofono_call_volume_set_speaker_volume(struct ofono_call_volume *cv,
 
 	cv->speaker_volume = percent;
 
-	if (__ofono_atom_get_registered(cv->atom) == FALSE)
-		return;
-
 	ofono_dbus_signal_property_changed(conn, path,
 						OFONO_CALL_VOLUME_INTERFACE,
 						"SpeakerVolume",
@@ -79,9 +76,6 @@ void ofono_call_volume_set_microphone_volume(struct ofono_call_volume *cv,
 
 	cv->microphone_volume = percent;
 
-	if (__ofono_atom_get_registered(cv->atom) == FALSE)
-		return;
-
 	ofono_dbus_signal_property_changed(conn, path,
 						OFONO_CALL_VOLUME_INTERFACE,
 						"MicrophoneVolume",
@@ -96,9 +90,6 @@ void ofono_call_volume_set_muted(struct ofono_call_volume *cv, int muted)
 
 	cv->muted = muted;
 
-	if (__ofono_atom_get_registered(cv->atom) == FALSE)
-		return;
-
 	m = muted;
 	ofono_dbus_signal_property_changed(conn, path,
 						OFONO_CALL_VOLUME_INTERFACE,
-- 
1.7.0.4

Re: [PATCH] call-volume: Remove atom registered check

[Denis Kenzior]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

Hi Jeevaka,

On 11/26/2010 08:58 AM, Jeevaka Badrappan wrote:
> ---
>  src/call-volume.c |    9 ---------
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/call-volume.c b/src/call-volume.c
> index dd1be92..c448d32 100644
> --- a/src/call-volume.c
> +++ b/src/call-volume.c
> @@ -62,9 +62,6 @@ void ofono_call_volume_set_speaker_volume(struct ofono_call_volume *cv,
>  
>  	cv->speaker_volume = percent;
>  
> -	if (__ofono_atom_get_registered(cv->atom) == FALSE)
> -		return;
> -

The idea here is that the atom driver can set the volume before it is
fully registered / initialized, hence the reason for this check.

The chance of this happening is small, but I think it is safe to leave
it the way it was.  Thoughts?

Regards,
-Denis