On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Robert Bielik <robert.bie...@dirac.com> wrote: >> Enabling SOF interrupts will be a big pain :-) Well, enabling the >> interrupt itself is a no-brainer, but it'll cause terrible CPU overload. > > Oh, I see. Hmm... would it be possible to allow upper levels to config this > dynamically ? I.e. for the ALSA subsystem there is no need for the SOF > timestamps, whereas for my proposal they would be needed. > > And what kind of CPU overhead are we talking about ? The IRQs shouldn't come > more often than every 125 us, and all that is needed is to take a timestamp > value 😊 But I'm probably overlooking a lot of stuff... > I believe we could control data rate precisely enough for the feeedback ep to be needed only for compatibility with Windows (Linux is already tested to work fine, MacOS is reported to have worked when the code was upstreamed.).
There was an implementation suggested by Alan Stern which would maintain accurate rate over a reasonable period of time. But that was rejected ... https://patches.linaro.org/patch/36270/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
