Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 07:05:54PM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote: > >> This is allocated too late for the "ensure that buffer size is a multiple of >> period size" >> constraint. > >> I have a patch after fixing other feedback. > > It looks good to me - I've no issues with the patch except for the one I > mentioned last time about considering ignoring the data in SRAM when > reporting the current position but I'm happy either way. The patch will > run into the cross tree issues with the platform data like the channel > combining one, probably best to submit patches against Kevin's tree for > now (or wait until after the merge window). > > Have you tested with PulseAudio? If not it'd be worth giving it a spin > - it's one of the more demanding applications. > I haven't tested with PulseAudio, and I don't have time to look into it currently. Any volunteers?
On question I had concerns davinci_pcm_hardware. It is currently for both playback and capture. Since allocate_sram contains "davinci_pcm_hardware.period_bytes_max = size;," should I change davinci_pcm_hardware to playback_pcm_hardware, capture_pcm_hardware? _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
