From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jyri Sarha Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] ASoC: simple-card: add asoc_simple_card_fmt_master() to simplify the code. Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:32:00 +0300 Message-ID: <5405AAB0.5030000@ti.com> References: <1409649969-15759-1-git-send-email-Li.Xiubo@freescale.com> <1409649969-15759-2-git-send-email-Li.Xiubo@freescale.com> <54059A35.3020303@gmail.com> <20140902123848.78c4c62a@armhf> <54059F20.4080509@gmail.com> <20140902130912.65c5b750@armhf> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140902130912.65c5b750@armhf> 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: Jean-Francois Moine , Varka Bhadram Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, andrew@lunn.ch, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, tiwai@suse.de, Xiubo Li , ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, lgirdwood@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org, galak@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/02/2014 02:09 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:12:40 +0530 > Varka Bhadram wrote: > >>>>> + switch (((np == bitclkmaster) << 4) | (np == framemaster)) { >>>>> + case 0x11: >>>>> + return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS; >>>>> + case 0x10: >>>>> + return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFM; >>>>> + case 0x01: >>>>> + return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS; >>>>> + default: >>>>> + return SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + /* Shouldn't be here */ >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> +} >>>> It will be nice if we declare the switch case numbers as macros (specific name)... >>> I don't see which macros: the values are just 2 booleans. >>> >> I am talking about 0x11, 0x10, 0x01 values.. We can give any understandable >> names to those...? > > #define TRUE_TRUE 0x11 > #define TRUE_FALSE 0x10 > #define FALSE_TRUE 0x01 > > or > > case ((TRUE << 4) | TRUE: > ... > case ((TRUE << 4) | FALSE: > ... > case ((FALSE << 4) | TRUE: > ... > I would vote for this. Even over the options suggested by Takashi, but then again this really a matter of taste. The fact that frame and bit-clock master boolean values are bundled into a single "enum" field, instead of two dedicated bits, makes all options bit inconvenient. Best regards, Jyri