On 7/31/2018 8:10 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:56:52PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> Yes. I'm saying that if the CPU DAI thinks it can figure out the base
>>> delay something is confused.
>
>> Then basically Akshu's patch does the correct thing, I
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:56:52PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > Yes. I'm saying that if the CPU DAI thinks it can figure out the base
> > delay something is confused.
> Then basically Akshu's patch does the correct thing, I suppose.
I think so. Could perhaps do with a lit
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 15:51:15 +0200,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:29:35PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > > > However since it's not supposed to be providing any DMA a CPU DAI
> > > > > really
> > > > > shouldn't be doing this...
>
> > > > Well, if so
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 03:29:35PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > However since it's not supposed to be providing any DMA a CPU DAI really
> > > > shouldn't be doing this...
> > > Well, if so, the CPU dai also cannot get the exact base delay
> > > corresponding to the repo
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 15:12:46 +0200,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:32:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > However since it's not supposed to be providing any DMA a CPU DAI really
> > > shouldn't be doing this...
>
> > Well, if so, the CPU dai also cann
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:32:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > However since it's not supposed to be providing any DMA a CPU DAI really
> > shouldn't be doing this...
> Well, if so, the CPU dai also cannot get the exact base delay
> corresponding to the reported position, e
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:19:43 +0200,
Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:25:11AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > It's not necessary that all CPU dais provide the pointer callback.
> > My suggestion is that, if CPU dai *wants* to provide the base delay,
> > it must be tied with the po
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:25:11AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> It's not necessary that all CPU dais provide the pointer callback.
> My suggestion is that, if CPU dai *wants* to provide the base delay,
> it must be tied with the position value, hence it should provide the
> pointer callback. If C
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 07:30:16AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> OTOH, if the CPU dai can really provide a dynamic value that is
> strictly tied with pointer, CPU dai itself should provide the pointer
> callback that covers both the pointer and the base delay, and it
> should be used instead of com
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:06:59 +0200,
Agrawal, Akshu wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2018 11:00 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:25:06 +0200,
> > Agrawal, Akshu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/30/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:32:21PM +0200, Takashi Iwai
On 7/31/2018 11:00 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:25:06 +0200,
> Agrawal, Akshu wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:32:21PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>>>
That said, if delay callback of CPU dai provides the additional
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:25:06 +0200,
Agrawal, Akshu wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/30/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:32:21PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> >> That said, if delay callback of CPU dai provides the additional delay,
> >> the patch does correct thing. OTOH, i
On 7/30/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:32:21PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
>> That said, if delay callback of CPU dai provides the additional delay,
>> the patch does correct thing. OTOH, if CPU dai provides the base
>> delay instead, we need to clarify that it's
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:32:21PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> That said, if delay callback of CPU dai provides the additional delay,
> the patch does correct thing. OTOH, if CPU dai provides the base
> delay instead, we need to clarify that it's rather a must; the delay
> calculation in pointer
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:15:44 +0200,
Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
> On 7/27/18 11:28 PM, Agrawal, Akshu wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 7/27/2018 8:39 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> >> On 7/27/18 5:13 AM, Akshu Agrawal wrote:
> >>> There are cases where a pointer function populates
> >>> runtime->delay,
On 7/27/18 11:28 PM, Agrawal, Akshu wrote:
On 7/27/2018 8:39 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 7/27/18 5:13 AM, Akshu Agrawal wrote:
There are cases where a pointer function populates
runtime->delay, such as:
./sound/pci/hda/hda_controller.c
./sound/soc/intel/atom/sst-mfld-platform-pcm.c
Al
On 7/27/2018 8:39 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> On 7/27/18 5:13 AM, Akshu Agrawal wrote:
>> There are cases where a pointer function populates
>> runtime->delay, such as:
>> ./sound/pci/hda/hda_controller.c
>> ./sound/soc/intel/atom/sst-mfld-platform-pcm.c
>>
>> Also, in some cases cpu dai u
On 7/27/18 5:13 AM, Akshu Agrawal wrote:
There are cases where a pointer function populates
runtime->delay, such as:
./sound/pci/hda/hda_controller.c
./sound/soc/intel/atom/sst-mfld-platform-pcm.c
Also, in some cases cpu dai used is generic and the pcm
driver needs to set delay.
This delay was
18 matches
Mail list logo
