Re: [PATCH v4 06/11] ASoC: SOF: Intel: Account for compress streams when servicing IRQs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Maybe be a paranoid check but the types used in this patch seem to need additional work:

diff --git a/include/sound/hdaudio.h b/include/sound/hdaudio.h
index 9a8bf1eb7d69..9a24d57f0cf2 100644
--- a/include/sound/hdaudio.h
+++ b/include/sound/hdaudio.h
@@ -496,6 +496,7 @@ struct hdac_stream {
  	bool locked:1;
  	bool stripe:1;			/* apply stripe control */
+ unsigned long curr_pos;

'long' is an error-prone definition...

  	/* timestamp */
  	unsigned long start_wallclk;	/* start + minimum wallclk */
  	unsigned long period_wallclk;	/* wallclk for period */
diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-stream.c b/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-stream.c
index c0ab9bb2a797..c8920a60e346 100644
--- a/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-stream.c
+++ b/sound/soc/sof/intel/hda-stream.c
@@ -571,6 +571,23 @@ bool hda_dsp_check_stream_irq(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev)
  	return ret;
  }
+static void hda_dsp_set_bytes_transferred(struct hdac_stream *hstream,
+					  u64 buffer_size)
+{
+	unsigned int prev_pos;
+	int pos, num_bytes;
+
+	div_u64_rem(hstream->curr_pos, buffer_size, &prev_pos);

... here you use it as a u64 value so I guess the intent was to use more than 32 bits?

But then the u64 for the 'buffer size' argument is also not consistent with the definition of div_u64_rem, it's got to be u32, or you wanted to use div64_64_rem?

static inline u64 div_u64_rem(u64 dividend, u32 divisor, u32 *remainder)

prev_pos should also be declared as u32 to avoid any ambiguity.

+	pos = snd_hdac_stream_get_pos_posbuf(hstream);
+
+	if (pos < prev_pos)
+		num_bytes = (buffer_size - prev_pos) +  pos;
+	else
+		num_bytes = pos - prev_pos;
+
+	hstream->curr_pos += num_bytes;

... and here it's a never ending-increment that is likely to hit a 32-bit ceiling.

I remember we made a mistake some time back on compressed stuff and updated the counters to rely on 64 bits. Unless this is a hardware counter (and then we should use u32 and deal with overflow), we should use u64, no?

_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel



[Index of Archives]     [ALSA User]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Pulse Audio]     [Kernel Archive]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Photo Sharing]     [Linux Sound]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux