>Paul wrote: > >> cards that do not use DMA should generally be considered inferior >> because of the extra CPU cycles they force on the host system. > >not generally. i.e. the pinnacle/fiji way is to map a piece of memory into >the pc's memory space. >thus an application using alsa-mmap can write (or read) directly into the >cards pcm-memory. >pretty efficiently, don't you think? (except that its ISA-memory) >(it can do so with 2 or 3 periods per buffer). >I don't see any drawback here caused by the lack of DMA.
yes, but this isn't what I mean by "a card that doesn't use DMA". cards that don't use DMA require the host CPU to issue an instruction per-small-piece-of-data to move it from host memory to the interface memory. what you're describing is still instruction-free movement of data between the two. the fact that the mapping is interface->host rather than host->interface (as on the rme9652, sblive, ice1712 and others) doesn't change that all that much. --p ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
