From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756041AbdKJE7D (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:59:03 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:42206 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755924AbdKJE7C (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:59:02 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,372,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="174195937" Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:32:14 +0530 From: Vinod Koul To: Srinivas Kandagatla Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML , ALSA , Mark , Takashi , Pierre , Sanyog Kale , Shreyas NC , patches.audio@intel.com, alan@linux.intel.com, Charles Keepax , Sagar Dharia , plai@codeaurora.org, Sudheer Papothi Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] soundwire: Add Master registration Message-ID: <20171110050214.GM3187@localhost> References: <1508382211-3154-1-git-send-email-vinod.koul@intel.com> <1508382211-3154-4-git-send-email-vinod.koul@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:14:16PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > On 19/10/17 04:03, Vinod Koul wrote: > > >+/** > >+ * sdw_add_bus_master: add a bus Master instance > >+ * > >+ * @bus: bus instance > >+ * > >+ * Initializes the bus instance, read properties and create child > >+ * devices. > >+ */ > > Some of the exported functions are missing kerneldocs. > Is it something you plan to add in next version of the patcheset? I though most were, will double check to be sure. > > >+int sdw_add_bus_master(struct sdw_bus *bus) > >+{ > >+ int ret; > >+ > >+ if (!bus->dev) { > >+ pr_err("SoundWire bus has no device"); > >+ return -ENODEV; > >+ } > >+ > >+ mutex_init(&bus->bus_lock); > >+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bus->slaves); > >+ > >+ /* > >+ * SDW is an enumerable bus, but devices can be powered off. So, > >+ * they won't be able to report as present. > >+ * > >+ * Create Slave devices based on Slaves described in > >+ * the respective firmware (ACPI/DT) > >+ */ > >+ > >+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && bus->dev && ACPI_HANDLE(bus->dev)) > >+ ret = sdw_acpi_find_slaves(bus); > >+ else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && bus->dev && bus->dev->of_node) > >+ ret = sdw_of_find_slaves(bus); > >+ else > bus->dev is already checked in the start of the function, do we need to > check once again ? yes already fixed, thanks -- ~Vinod