headers
Krzysztof Helt | 17 Aug 22:37
Favicon

[PATCH] wss_lib: snd_wss_calibrate_mute improvement

From: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>

Mute sound by setting mute bit without
setting volume to 0. It makes both source code
and binary shorter.

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
---

diff -urp alsa-ref/sound/isa/wss/wss_lib.c alsa-driver/sound/isa/wss/wss_lib.c
--- alsa-ref/sound/isa/wss/wss_lib.c	2008-08-14 00:05:30.000000000 +0200
+++ alsa-driver/sound/isa/wss/wss_lib.c	2008-08-17 22:33:24.620085406 +0200
@@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ static void snd_wss_calibrate_mute(struc
 {
 	unsigned long flags;

-	mute = mute ? 1 : 0;
+	mute = mute ? 0x80 : 0;
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&chip->reg_lock, flags);
 	if (chip->calibrate_mute == mute) {
 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chip->reg_lock, flags);
@@ -589,34 +589,34 @@ static void snd_wss_calibrate_mute(struc
 			     chip->image[CS4231_LOOPBACK]);
 	}
 	snd_wss_dout(chip, CS4231_AUX1_LEFT_INPUT,
-		     mute ? 0x80 : chip->image[CS4231_AUX1_LEFT_INPUT]);
+		     mute | chip->image[CS4231_AUX1_LEFT_INPUT]);
 	snd_wss_dout(chip, CS4231_AUX1_RIGHT_INPUT,
-		     mute ? 0x80 : chip->image[CS4231_AUX1_RIGHT_INPUT]);
+		     mute | chip->image[CS4231_AUX1_RIGHT_INPUT]);
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rene Herman | 18 Aug 10:50

Re: [PATCH] wss_lib: snd_wss_calibrate_mute improvement

On 17-08-08 22:38, Krzysztof Helt wrote:

> From: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
> 
> Mute sound by setting mute bit without
> setting volume to 0. It makes both source code
> and binary shorter.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>

Grmmbbled-over-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman <at> gmail.com>

This should be safe and the current function indeed generates crap code 
but in the sense of always expecting the worst broken hardware variants 
to be out there I must say I'd rather have seen that GCC were beter. But 
yes, sure.

Rene.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Takashi Iwai | 18 Aug 12:16
Favicon

Re: [PATCH] wss_lib: snd_wss_calibrate_mute improvement

At Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:50:15 +0200,
Rene Herman wrote:
> 
> On 17-08-08 22:38, Krzysztof Helt wrote:
> 
> > From: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
> > 
> > Mute sound by setting mute bit without
> > setting volume to 0. It makes both source code
> > and binary shorter.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
> 
> Grmmbbled-over-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman <at> gmail.com>
> 
> This should be safe and the current function indeed generates crap code 
> but in the sense of always expecting the worst broken hardware variants 
> to be out there I must say I'd rather have seen that GCC were beter. But 
> yes, sure.

Yeah, the slightest concern is the intention of using 0x80 there.
If this patch was already tested on some real hardwares (and I guess
it should work), I'm willing to apply it.  Krzystof, was this tested
on your machines?

Takashi
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rene Herman | 18 Aug 13:04

Re: [PATCH] wss_lib: snd_wss_calibrate_mute improvement

On 18-08-08 12:16, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> At Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:50:15 +0200,
> Rene Herman wrote:
>> On 17-08-08 22:38, Krzysztof Helt wrote:
>>
>>> From: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
>>>
>>> Mute sound by setting mute bit without
>>> setting volume to 0. It makes both source code
>>> and binary shorter.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
>> Grmmbbled-over-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman <at> gmail.com>
>>
>> This should be safe and the current function indeed generates crap code 
>> but in the sense of always expecting the worst broken hardware variants 
>> to be out there I must say I'd rather have seen that GCC were beter. But 
>> yes, sure.
> 
> Yeah, the slightest concern is the intention of using 0x80 there.

Yes, shared that same concern but it's very likely not significant. The 
original thought may just have been that you have to write _something_ 
so you might as well simply write 0x80 instead or or-ing in a bit and 
with volume at 0, your're even "doubly safe"...

> If this patch was already tested on some real hardwares (and I guess
> it should work), I'm willing to apply it.  Krzystof, was this tested
> on your machines?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
krzysztof.h1 | 18 Aug 13:16
Favicon

Re: [PATCH] wss_lib: snd_wss_calibrate_mute improvement

> At Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:50:15 +0200,
> Rene Herman wrote:
> > 
> > On 17-08-08 22:38, Krzysztof Helt wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
> > > 
> > > Mute sound by setting mute bit without
> > > setting volume to 0. It makes both source code
> > > and binary shorter.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
> > 
> > Grmmbbled-over-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman <at> gmail.com>
> > 
> > This should be safe and the current function indeed generates crap code
> 
> > but in the sense of always expecting the worst broken hardware variants
> 
> > to be out there I must say I'd rather have seen that GCC were beter. But
> 
> > yes, sure.
> 
> Yeah, the slightest concern is the intention of using 0x80 there.
> If this patch was already tested on some real hardwares (and I guess
> it should work), I'm willing to apply it.  Krzystof, was this tested
> on your machines?
> 

I have tested it only on cs4236 (inside laptop) and opti931 I have in the old PC at the moment. If you want I can
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Takashi Iwai | 18 Aug 14:00
Favicon

Re: [PATCH] wss_lib: snd_wss_calibrate_mute improvement

At 18 Aug 2008 13:16:56 +0200,
krzysztof.h1 <at> poczta.fm wrote:
> 
> > At Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:50:15 +0200,
> > Rene Herman wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 17-08-08 22:38, Krzysztof Helt wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
> > > > 
> > > > Mute sound by setting mute bit without
> > > > setting volume to 0. It makes both source code
> > > > and binary shorter.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1 <at> wp.pl>
> > > 
> > > Grmmbbled-over-by: Rene Herman <rene.herman <at> gmail.com>
> > > 
> > > This should be safe and the current function indeed generates crap code
> > 
> > > but in the sense of always expecting the worst broken hardware variants
> > 
> > > to be out there I must say I'd rather have seen that GCC were beter. But
> > 
> > > yes, sure.
> > 
> > Yeah, the slightest concern is the intention of using 0x80 there.
> > If this patch was already tested on some real hardwares (and I guess
> > it should work), I'm willing to apply it.  Krzystof, was this tested
> > on your machines?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane