From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Lai Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: introduce SOC_SINGLE_S8_TLV macro Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:52:17 -0800 Message-ID: <4F0A8091.8050804@codeaurora.org> References: <1325987606-7179-1-git-send-email-plai@codeaurora.org> <20120108202332.GE29065@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0744310393E for ; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 06:52:25 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20120108202332.GE29065@opensource.wolfsonmicro.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: Mark Brown Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, lrg@ti.com List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org > | #define SOC_DOUBLE_S8_TLV(xname, xreg, xmin, xmax, tlv_array) \ > > Since no shifts are specified the signature is just the same as your > SOC_SINGLE_S8_TLV: Yes, it could have been made more generic with shift parameter. Existing behavior is writing same value to most and least significant bytes of 16-bit wide register. >> +#define SOC_SINGLE_S8_TLV(xname, xreg, xmin, xmax, tlv_array) \ > > so it looks like what really ought to happen here is that the existing > macro gets renamed to the new macro and a new macro gets defined for > double values if one is needed. Is there backward compatibility concern? I see soc/codec/uda1380.c already using SOC_DOUBLE_S8_TLV. Thanks Patrick -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. ---