Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] ASoC: sgtl5000: Improve VAG power and mute control

[Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>]

On 2019-07-18 20:42, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
> On 2019-07-18 11:02, Oleksandr Suvorov wrote:
>> +enum {
>> +    HP_POWER_EVENT,
>> +    DAC_POWER_EVENT,
>> +    ADC_POWER_EVENT,
>> +    LAST_POWER_EVENT
>> +};
>> +
>> +static u16 mute_mask[] = {
>> +    SGTL5000_HP_MUTE,
>> +    SGTL5000_OUTPUTS_MUTE,
>> +    SGTL5000_OUTPUTS_MUTE
>> +};
> 
> If mute_mask[] is only used within common handler, you may consider 
> declaring const array within said handler instead (did not check that 
> myself).
> Otherwise, simple comment for the second _OUTPUTS_MUTE should suffice - 
> its not self explanatory why you doubled that mask.
> 
>> +
>>   /* sgtl5000 private structure in codec */
>>   struct sgtl5000_priv {
>>       int sysclk;    /* sysclk rate */
>> @@ -137,8 +157,109 @@ struct sgtl5000_priv {
>>       u8 micbias_voltage;
>>       u8 lrclk_strength;
>>       u8 sclk_strength;
>> +    u16 mute_state[LAST_POWER_EVENT];
>>   };
> 
> When I spoke of LAST enum constant, I did not really had this specific 
> usage in mind.
> 
>  From design perspective, _LAST_ does not exist and should never be 
> referred to as "the next option" i.e.: new enum constant.
> That is way preferred usage is:
> u16 mute_state[ADC_POWER_EVENT+1;
> -or-
> u16 mute_state[LAST_POWER_EVENT+1];
> 
> Maybe I'm just being radical here :)
> 
> Czarek

Forgive me for double posting. Comment above is targeted towards:

 >> +enum {
 >> +    HP_POWER_EVENT,
 >> +    DAC_POWER_EVENT,
 >> +    ADC_POWER_EVENT,
 >> +    LAST_POWER_EVENT
 >> +};

as LAST_POWER_EVENT is not assigned explicitly to ADC_POWER_EVENT and 
thus generates implicit "new option" of value 3.

Czarek