Thanks Pierre for comments.
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 1:01 AM Pierre-Louis Bossart
<pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for starting this work Daniel.
>
> > +int sof_compr_get_params(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> > + struct snd_compr_stream *cstream, struct snd_codec *params)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> You should probably add a statement along the lines of:
>
> /* TODO: we don't query the supported codecs for now, if the application
> asks for an unsupported codec the set_params() will fail
> */
>
> .get_codec_caps is also missing, it should be documented as something we
> want to add.
Will do.
>
> > +static int sof_compr_pointer(struct snd_soc_component *component,
> > + struct snd_compr_stream *cstream,
> > + struct snd_compr_tstamp *tstamp)
> > +{
> > + struct snd_compr_runtime *runtime = cstream->runtime;
> > + struct sof_compr_stream *sstream = runtime->private_data;
> > +
> > + tstamp->sampling_rate = sstream->sample_rate;
> > + tstamp->copied_total = sstream->copied_total;
>
> Humm, this doesn't return any information on how many PCM samples were
> generated (pcm_frames) or rendered (pcm_io_frames).
This is on my TODO list. I think there is some more work needed to be
done in FW.
>
> I don't think the existing SOF firmware has this level of detail for
> now, you should at least document it as to be added in the future.
>
> In addition, the .pointer callback can be used at different times, and
> for added precision the information should be queried from the firmware
> via IPC or by looking up counters in the SRAM windows.
>
> I don't think it's good enough to update the information on a fragment
> elapsed event. It will work for sure in terms of reporting compressed
> data transfers, but it's not good enough for an application to report
> time elapsed.
Very good observations here.
>
> > +struct sof_compr_stream {
> > + unsigned int copied_total;
> > + unsigned int sample_rate;
> > + size_t posn_offset;
> > +};
>
> do you need an SOF-specific definition? This looks awfully similar to
> snd_compr_tstamp:
>
> struct snd_compr_tstamp {
> __u32 byte_offset;
> __u32 copied_total;
> __u32 pcm_frames;
> __u32 pcm_io_frames;
> __u32 sampling_rate;
> }
There is no need for a SOF specific definition. I think we can use
that for now. We can change it later if we
need new fields.
