On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Giuliano Pochini wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:14:42 +0100 (BST) > Mark Hills <mark@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > You might be able to do the comparison before wrapping pipe_position, > > but hopefully you'll consider my patch in reply to Takashi has more > > clarity. > > Your patch is very interesting. I didn't take into account the idea of > advancing the position by full periods only. If the PCM subsystem hasn't > changed much since I last checked (I wrote the driver many years ago), > it should work fine (and I'm sure you tested it). But I don't know if > something else requires better resolution. It's funny, but I didn't take account of the opposite; that there was any merits to polling inbetween the interrupts for better resolution. Takashi pointed out the need for this and we had some discussion. Check the other thread, where I provided a newer revision of the code. The good thing is I think we can have all the things we want and be bug free, just I have to understand the specification. It would be great if you would like to take a look at the newer code for any problems you can see. I was going to run it for a few days then turn it into some patches. -- Mark
