Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:31:27 +0530 | From | Sudip Mukherjee <> | Subject | Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 6/6] [ALSA] portman2x4 - use new parport device model |
| |
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 11:50:15AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:44:34 +0100, > Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 11:26:44AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:15:51 +0100, > > > Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > > > > > > Modify portman driver to use the new parallel port device model. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@vectorindia.org> > > > > > > Did you actually test this? > > > > No. :( > > I donot have the hardware. But since the only change is in the way it > > registers with the parport so it should not break. > > I was preparing v2 for this and the other one. I missed seeing some more > > points. > > > > > > Also about the changes: > > > > > > > --- > > > > sound/drivers/portman2x4.c | 24 ++++++++++++++---------- > > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c b/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c > > > > index 5fcde7d..88b25ca 100644 > > > > --- a/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c > > > > +++ b/sound/drivers/portman2x4.c > > > > @@ -704,9 +704,10 @@ static void snd_portman_detach(struct parport *p) > > > > } > > > > > > > > static struct parport_driver portman_parport_driver = { > > > > - .name = "portman2x4", > > > > - .attach = snd_portman_attach, > > > > - .detach = snd_portman_detach > > > > + .name = "portman2x4", > > > > + .match_port = snd_portman_attach, > > > > + .detach = snd_portman_detach, > > > > + .devmodel = true, > > > > }; > > > > > > > > /********************************************************************* > > > > @@ -734,6 +735,7 @@ static int snd_portman_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > struct snd_card *card = NULL; > > > > struct portman *pm = NULL; > > > > int err; > > > > + struct pardev_cb portman_cb; > > > > > > > > p = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL); > > > > @@ -758,13 +760,15 @@ static int snd_portman_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > sprintf(card->longname, "%s at 0x%lx, irq %i", > > > > card->shortname, p->base, p->irq); > > > > > > > > - pardev = parport_register_device(p, /* port */ > > > > - DRIVER_NAME, /* name */ > > > > - NULL, /* preempt */ > > > > - NULL, /* wakeup */ > > > > - snd_portman_interrupt, /* ISR */ > > > > - PARPORT_DEV_EXCL, /* flags */ > > > > - (void *)card); /* private */ > > > > + memset(&portman_cb, 0, sizeof(portman_cb)); > > > > + portman_cb.private = card; /* private */ > > > > + portman_cb.irq_func = snd_portman_interrupt; /* ISR */ > > > > + portman_cb.flags = PARPORT_DEV_EXCL; /* flags */ > > > > > > You can put them initializers except for private. Then the explicit > > > memset can be omitted. > > > > > > > + > > > > + pardev = parport_register_dev_model(p, /* port */ > > > > + DRIVER_NAME, /* name */ > > > > + &portman_cb, /* callbacks */ > > > > + device_count); /* device number */ > > > > > > Does device_count really work similarly for > > > parport_register_dev_model()? I supposed the argument being the > > > device id number while you're passing the number of devices to > > > create. > > > > This device_count is actually used for the device name in > > /sys/bus/parport/devices. Something like DRIVER_NAME.device_count. > > Well, but device_count is incremented in snd_portman_attach(). The > management of device_count should be moved around the caller side, if > we use this as the id (and use the assigned id instead of device_count > in snd_portman_attach()).
But, snd_portman_attach() finally decides if the probe/attach was a success or not. And it will save the device in platform_devices[device_count] and then it will increment device_count to prepare it for the next device. Ofcourse, we can do it in snd_portman_probe() but isn't snd_portman_attach() the caller here?
If you want I can move the count to snd_portman_probe() but since I do not have the hardware I tried to have the minimum possible change.
regards sudip
| |