From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] Allow multiple callbacks for hda_jack Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:11:52 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1410445157-23198-1-git-send-email-tiwai@suse.de> <5411BC38.5020503@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76B1261A8E for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:11:52 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: David Henningsson Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:42:21 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:14:00 +0200, > David Henningsson wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2014-09-11 16:19, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > this is a series of patches I quickly cooked up after the discussion > > > in this morning: the support of multiple callbacks per jack. > > > > > > The series is applied on top of the previous fix patch (ALSA: hda - > > > Fix invalid pin powermap without jack detection). It begins with > > > a couple of cleanups, then introduces the new hda_jack_callback > > > struct and the changes along with it, then ends with another > > > couple of cleanup patches based on the new infrastructure. > > > > > > I've tested only with a small set of devices, so far. > > > > In general I like this idea and I remember thinking along the same lines. > > > > I'm pondering whether we could use a more memory efficient layout for > > the callback list. Like allocating a snd_array on codec level and have > > indices to that list instead of pointers. Then the kernel would have > > less memory blocks to worry about. What do you think? > > I don't think the memory usage would be any problem in this case as > it's just a few numbers of small blocks. The only question is which > is better manageable in the source code level. Let's see... I tried hacking with snd_array, but this ended up more complexity in the code (either adding an extra stuff into struct hda_codec or obviously more overhead than the simple kmalloc). So, I decided to keep the code as it was. If you find a better solution, let me know. In anyway, I'll submit v2 patches. thanks, Takashi