2010/7/7 Mark Brown <[email protected]> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:35:28AM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote: > > > Indeed, your algorithm may produce more accurate results for the specific > rate > > that you tested for. However, that seems more luck than anything. How do > you > > know that a frame size of 33 will always give more accurate results than > a frame > > size of 32? If your going to loop, you need to calculate the error and > minimize that > > and not just stop when framesize finally reaches your minimum size of 33. > > Yes, this is pretty much the algorithm I was trying to suggest earlier. > Iterate up until you hit either an exact match or decide that the frame > size is getting too big. >
Mark and Troy, yes, it is wrong to say that a faster clock is automatically better approximated. But we did measurements and it was better. Sorry, no data available. The setup was difficult due to very thin wires solded to the I2S bus. Now we don't have the setup. At the moment is for me impossible to enhance the algorithm. I'm sorry. During september or october I'll work again on it and it is possible I could do some improvements. I hope anyway that the three patches are accepted. I don't know exactly how this procedure works, can you explain to me? I should see the patches in the mainline kernel, or in a special linux-next or other? Thanks, Raffaele
_______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
