On 10/14/21 11:08 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:59:21 +0200, > Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/14/21 9:53 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: >>> Both snd_pcm_delay() and snd_pcm_hwsync() do the almost same thing. >>> The only difference is that the former calculate the delay, so unify >>> them as a code cleanup, and treat NULL delay argument only for hwsync >>> operation. >>> >>> Also, the patch does a slight code refactoring in snd_pcm_delay(). >>> The initialization of the delay value is done in the caller side now. >> >> I would have done the opposite change, i.e. keep snd_pcm_hwsync() but >> add an optional delay argument/calculation. >> >> 'snd_pcm_delay' doesn't really hint at any hwsync operation. >> >> Just a naming difference really. > > Yes, but also the difference of the number of arguments. Changing > other way round would need to more modifications in the end. Ah yes, makes sense Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
