On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:31:42PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Possibly your mail system flagged it as spam?
> I didn't receive it either and it doesn't seem to be in the archives.
Initially they weren't CCed to the list.
signatu
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:39:49AM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
>
> > OK thank you, now I see the patch is already in the tree, but I am sure
> > I didn't get the mail titled "Applied xxx to the asoc tree", so I didn't
> > know the patch sta
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:39:49AM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> OK thank you, now I see the patch is already in the tree, but I am sure
> I didn't get the mail titled "Applied xxx to the asoc tree", so I didn't
> know the patch status. Maybe something was wrong with the mail system?
Possibly your ma
On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 09:12 -0700, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:03:19PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> > Any suggestion for this patch?
> >
> > On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 14:51 +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> > > In capture, there is chance that hw_ptr reported at IRQ is
> > > a little smaller t
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:03:19PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> Any suggestion for this patch?
>
> On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 14:51 +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> > In capture, there is chance that hw_ptr reported at IRQ is
> > a little smaller than period_size due to internal AFE buffer.
> > In the case of pi
Any suggestion for this patch?
On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 14:51 +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> In capture, there is chance that hw_ptr reported at IRQ is
> a little smaller than period_size due to internal AFE buffer.
> In the case of ping-pong buffer:
>
> |--|--
In capture, there is chance that hw_ptr reported at IRQ is
a little smaller than period_size due to internal AFE buffer.
In the case of ping-pong buffer:
|--|-|
hw_ptr < period_size
This available buffer will not
7 matches
Mail list logo
