From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 45F7A60767
Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de
Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752317AbeFFNJu (ORCPT <rfc822;monsieuricon@codeaurora.org>
        + 25 others); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 09:09:50 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47934 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751856AbeFFNJs (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 6 Jun 2018 09:09:48 -0400
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 15:09:45 +0200
Message-ID: <s5h1sdknjs6.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: perex@perex.cz, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unnecessary test?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806062206070.4659@hadrien>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806062135430.4445@hadrien>
        <s5h4lignk0q.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
        <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806062206070.4659@hadrien>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 Emacs/25.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 15:06:28 +0200,
Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:39:05 +0200,
> > Julia Lawall wrote:
> > >
> > > In the file sound/pci/ctxfi/cthw20k1.c, the function daio_mgr_dao_init
> > > contains:
> > >
> > > set_field(&ctl->spoctl, SPOCTL_OS << (idx*8),
> > >           ((conf >> 3) & 0x1) ? 2 : 2); /* Raw */
> > >
> > > Could the second argument just be 2?  It's true that the preceeding call
> > > contains conf >> ..., but in a more useful way, so perhaps it could be
> > > useful for uniformity?
> >
> > I guess this is a typo of "2 : 0".  The code seems toggling the
> > control bit depending on the S/PDIF passthru mode.  It might be
> > reversed, but I bet 1 for non-audio from a common sense.
> >
> > Ditto for cthw20k1.c.  This one is likely 1, not 2, though.
> 
> OK, should I send a patch?  I have no way to test it.

Me neither :)

Feel free to submit the patch.  The SPDIF output seems very rarely
used on these devices (otherwise people must have noticed it), so the
chance to break anything must be small.


thanks,

Takashi