| Message ID | 41aa7354a6883f31afa60c21c2e14ecbb3bbb7e9.1392995566.git.moinejf@free.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ struct simple_card_data { > unsigned int daifmt; > struct asoc_simple_dai cpu_dai; > struct asoc_simple_dai codec_dai; > - struct snd_soc_dai_link snd_link; > }; > > static int __asoc_simple_card_dai_init(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, > @@ -246,7 +245,9 @@ static int asoc_simple_card_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > int ret; > > - priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, > + sizeof(*priv) + sizeof(*dai_link), This is okey for me. Well, how about splitting the *priv and *dai_link into two separated memory blocks? As we can get the dai-link pointer via priv->snd_card.dai_link in other places. IMHO, then the code will be much more simplifier and readable. Just for one suggestion. Thanks, -- Best regards, Xiubo > + GFP_KERNEL); > if (!priv) > return -ENOMEM; > > @@ -255,7 +256,7 @@ static int asoc_simple_card_probe(struct platform_device > *pdev) > */ > priv->snd_card.owner = THIS_MODULE; > priv->snd_card.dev = dev; > - dai_link = &priv->snd_link; > + dai_link = (struct snd_soc_dai_link *) (priv + 1); > priv->snd_card.dai_link = dai_link; > priv->snd_card.num_links = 1; > > -- > 1.9.0 > >
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:32:02 +0000 "Li.Xiubo@freescale.com" <Li.Xiubo@freescale.com> wrote: > > > @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ struct simple_card_data { > > unsigned int daifmt; > > struct asoc_simple_dai cpu_dai; > > struct asoc_simple_dai codec_dai; > > - struct snd_soc_dai_link snd_link; > > }; > > > > static int __asoc_simple_card_dai_init(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, > > @@ -246,7 +245,9 @@ static int asoc_simple_card_probe(struct platform_device > > *pdev) > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > int ret; > > > > - priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, > > + sizeof(*priv) + sizeof(*dai_link), > > This is okey for me. > > Well, how about splitting the *priv and *dai_link into two separated > memory blocks? As we can get the dai-link pointer via priv->snd_card.dai_link > in other places. > > IMHO, then the code will be much more simplifier and readable. It is just a simple optimization: less calls to memory allocation and less code (also, less TLB reload?). I will add more comments.
diff --git a/sound/soc/generic/simple-card.c b/sound/soc/generic/simple-card.c index 8809ab4..a75a8bb 100644 --- a/sound/soc/generic/simple-card.c +++ b/sound/soc/generic/simple-card.c @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ struct simple_card_data { unsigned int daifmt; struct asoc_simple_dai cpu_dai; struct asoc_simple_dai codec_dai; - struct snd_soc_dai_link snd_link; }; static int __asoc_simple_card_dai_init(struct snd_soc_dai *dai, @@ -246,7 +245,9 @@ static int asoc_simple_card_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; int ret; - priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, + sizeof(*priv) + sizeof(*dai_link), + GFP_KERNEL); if (!priv) return -ENOMEM; @@ -255,7 +256,7 @@ static int asoc_simple_card_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) */ priv->snd_card.owner = THIS_MODULE; priv->snd_card.dev = dev; - dai_link = &priv->snd_link; + dai_link = (struct snd_soc_dai_link *) (priv + 1); priv->snd_card.dai_link = dai_link; priv->snd_card.num_links = 1;
The DAI link array is hard-coded as a single CPU / CODEC DAIs link. This patch allocates this array with the card definition and facilitates handling more links. Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine <moinejf@free.fr> --- sound/soc/generic/simple-card.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)