On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
+ switch (fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS:
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM:
+ break;
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFM:
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ default:
+ break;
+ }
My eyes fell upon this switch statement, probably I have similar
criticisms as to what has already been said, but:
1. Surely the default case is also an -EINVAL
2. Why not let all the EINVALS fall through, it will shorten up the
code, and IMO make it more readable, something like this?
+ switch (fmt & SND_SOC_DAIFMT_MASTER_MASK) {
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFM: /* Passing Case */
+ break;
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFS: /* Failing Cases */
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBM_CFS:
+ case SND_SOC_DAIFMT_CBS_CFM:
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ default:
+ printk(KERN_INFO "Unknown SND_SOC_DAIFMT kind\n");
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
--