Re: [PATCH 2/3] ASoC: OMAP4: Add support for McPDM

Candelaria Villareal, Jorge
2009-12-21T22:50:18Z

>On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 06:01:19PM +0100, ext Candelaria Villareal, Jorge wrote:
>>Mmm... But it _does_ have some breaks. Besides, I am still unsure that
>>if structure should be used here. Code would be duplicated, for example,
>>DN_IRQ_FULL and DN_IRQ_EMPTY share the same procedure to acknowledge
>>the request.
>
>quoting your switch for irq here:
>
>> + switch (irq_status) {
>> + case DN_IRQ_FULL:
>> + case DN_IRQ_EMTPY:
>> + dev_err(mcpdm_irq->dev, "DN FIFO error %x\n", irq_status);
>> + omap_mcpdm_reset(MCPDM_DOWNLINK, 1);
>> + omap_mcpdm_set_downlink(mcpdm_irq->downlink);
>> + omap_mcpdm_reset(MCPDM_DOWNLINK, 0);
>> + break;
>> + case DN_IRQ:
>> + dev_dbg(mcpdm_irq->dev, "DN write request\n");
>> + break;
>> + case UP_IRQ_FULL:
>> + case UP_IRQ_EMPTY:
>> + dev_err(mcpdm_irq->dev, "UP FIFO error %x\n", irq_status);
>> + omap_mcpdm_reset(MCPDM_UPLINK, 1);
>> + omap_mcpdm_set_uplink(mcpdm_irq->uplink);
>> + omap_mcpdm_reset(MCPDM_UPLINK, 0);
>> + break;
>> + case UP_IRQ:
>> + dev_dbg(mcpdm_irq->dev, "UP write request\n");
>> + break;
>> + }
>
>what happens if you have both DN_IRQ_FULL and DN_IRQ_EMPTY at the same
>time ?
>
>irq_status == DN_IRQ_FULL will evaluate to false and
>irq_status == DN_IRQ_EMPTY will also evaluate to false so none of those
>case statements will execute. Similarly to other case statements.
>
>if you have to execute the same piece of code for two different irqs you
>can always:
>
>if ((irq_status & DN_IRQ_FULL) || (irq_status & DN_IRQ_EMPTY))
> ack_those_irqs();
>
>this code might be working now only out of luck, simply because you
>didn't have two irqs hapenning at the same time. Do not use switch() on
>bitmasks, it won't work always.
>
>--
>balbi

OK, I get what you say now. This change will be added to version 2. Thanks