At Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:59:53 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote: > > > And above all, the fix would be really easy like the patch below. > Your patch works very well. > Actually, much better than mine, for > the reasons I can't explain (there is > probably another similar loop somewhere, > otherwise they would work in the similar > way). > Just a few questions: > 1. Do you want to "round" avail_min only > when it is < period_size, or maybe you > want something like this instead: > --- > avail_min += period_size - 1; > avail_min -= avail_min % period_size; > --- > so that it is always rounded up? A good question. I'm a kind of conservative about that. avail_min itself doesn't guarantee the timing accuracy, so it's no driver/system problem even if the app is woken up slightly after the exact time. But it's very unlikely that this round-up would break anything, though. > 2. What is it really good for? Why would > the one want avail_min != period_size? > Now, after you disallow avail_min<period_size, > it makes even less sense - why would > someone set avail_min>period_size, instead > of increasing the period_size itself? > So maybe something like this is also > possible: > --- > /* there seem to be no reason to set avail_min, > * period_size is enough */ > avail_min = period_size; > --- Changing period_size isn't allowed arbitrarilly because it's a hardware constraint. OTOH, avail_min is the software parameter. So avail_min > period_size makes sense in some cases. In my patch I disallowed the case avail_min < period_size because it doesn't work *practically*. > > Then which version of mpg123 with which configuration? > But I am not sure if you tried _any_ > mpg123 with any configuration. :) Well, one of my versions on my machine has even no ALSA support. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
