On 09/10/2007 02:42 PM, Krzysztof Helt wrote: > On 9/10/07, Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Well, no, sorry, but I consider that to be completely breaking the logic of >> the code. > > No I changed the logic of this code not to wait for specifically for > callibration "start" but into calibration "under way". No, waiting for calibration the be under way is what my 0/1 ms does. You are waiting for it to be nearly done, which is complete nonsense. One line below we are waiting for 250 ms (generally with _one_ pass through the loop -- we only wake up through signals) anyway! The no delay at all from cs4231 is the logic -- when we've dropped MCE, ACI comes up (when auto-calibrating) and we only wait for it to finish. For ad1848, ACI up may take 5 cycles from MCE down so we delay 1 ms so we know we're testing correctly. >> Your: wait unconditionally until calibration _nearly_ done, then go wait for >> it for 250 ms to be really done. >> >> Mine: wait unconditionally until calibration has started, then go wait for >> it for 250 ms to finish. [ ... ] > So the only difference is 6 (or 1) ms and this time will be spent in > the loop anyway. Are we arguing 1ms (for CS4231) in 250ms waiting > loop? No, we are arguing maintaining code. Do not obscure the code flow for no reason. Fix your logic or (for what it's worth) I am going to NAK the change. > I don't understand "keep them in sync". In sync source-code wise. While the no delay from cs4231 may be the rule, ad1848 needs a small delay so if you'd wanted to keep them looking the same I wouldn't care about a 1 ms delay for cs4231 as well. If you don't, fine as well. Rene. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
