openvortex-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Openvortex-dev] Re: [Alsa-devel] Re: [ALSA - driver 0001138]: error


From: Takashi Iwai
Subject: Re: [Openvortex-dev] Re: [Alsa-devel] Re: [ALSA - driver 0001138]: errors when installing au8820 modules
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:18:44 +0200
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 MULE XEmacs/21.4 (patch 15) (Security Through Obscurity) (i386-suse-linux)

At Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:02:47 +0200,
Alien wrote:
> 
> this is a patch against some CVS version of a few weeks ago not more than 3 
> weeks i think...

The patch looks almost fine to me.
Just subtle things:

> @@ -202,6 +205,10 @@
>               goto alloc_out;
>       }
>  
> +     snd_card_set_dev(card, &pci->dev);
> +
> +     snd_card_set_dev(card, &pci->dev);
> +
>       *rchip = chip;

Too much :)


> Index: alsa-kernel/pci/au88x0/au88x0_eqdata.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/alsa/alsa-kernel/pci/au88x0/au88x0_eqdata.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -r1.1 au88x0_eqdata.c
> --- alsa-kernel/pci/au88x0/au88x0_eqdata.c    9 Mar 2004 11:52:13 -0000       
> 1.1
> +++ alsa-kernel/pci/au88x0/au88x0_eqdata.c    7 Jun 2005 17:56:37 -0000
> @@ -104,7 +104,11 @@
>  };
>  
>  /*_rodataba0:*/
> -static long eq_levels[32] = {
> +static u16 eq_levels[64] = {
> +     0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,
> +     0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,
> +     0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,
> +     0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,
>       0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,
>       0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,
>       0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0x0000,

You don't need to define values if the static array is initialize to
zero.  In this case,

        static u16 eq_levels[64];

would be better.


Takashi




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]