From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: question on dapm_reg_event() Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:53:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20100106145321.GC5783@sirena.org.uk> References: <771cded01001041810n490145ednefccea066eaf271a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cassiel.sirena.org.uk (cassiel.sirena.org.uk [80.68.93.111]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8ABB10381A for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:53:22 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <771cded01001041810n490145ednefccea066eaf271a@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Haojian Zhuang Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 09:10:27PM -0500, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > I just have a question on dapm code. In dapm_reg_event(), -(w->reg + > 1) is input parameter of snd_soc_update_bits(). Why we need to use > negative value as input parameter at here? Why do we not use w->reg at > here? Hrm, no, that's not at all clear to me either. CCing Jarkko who contributed the register write control originally.