On 31/08/05, Tyler Trafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lucas Meijer wrote:
> > Graeme Wilford wrote:
> >
> >> Use the ivtv_dynbuf=0 driver option as mentioned below.
> >>
> >> Should we perhaps change the *default* to static buffer allocation?
> >> This problem appears to crop up time and again...
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea to me. I've not used the .3 series for months
> > and months because of freezups I didn't know how to get rid of, untill
> > recently a kind soul here suggested the ivtv_dynbuf=0 setting.
>
> IIRC, the dynamic buffer alocation is preferable if you are loading the
> newer firmware.
I thought it was frame rather than block DMA transfers that were
preferrable with newer firmware (from ivtv-driver.c):
/* If daring to use newer firmware, then change to frame based mode */
if (retval > 0x02040011) {
itv->dma_cfg.enc_buf_size = 0x8000; /* 32k */
itv->dma_cfg.fw_enc_dma_xfer = 1; /* frame based */
itv->dma_cfg.fw_enc_dma_type = 1;
} else if (itv->options.dynbuf) {
itv->dma_cfg.enc_buf_size = 0x8000;
}
Wouldn't have thought dynamic buffer allocation made any difference to
driver performance...
Chris?
Cheers,
WIlf.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
ivtv-devel mailing list
ivtv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ivtv-devel
