On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:26:36 +0100, Raghu Ballappa Bankapur wrote: > > Hi Takashi, > > Thanks for your feedback. > > I see your below statement > > But, having either this zero check or minimal hw_ptr_buffer_jiffies=1 > would be good in anyway, even if we add more check for the hw_params > for no-period-wakeup case. > > Please review if those changes are Ok If you mean about your posted patch for "those changes", as Jaroslav suggested in the thread, we may take a different approach: just set the minimal hw_ptr_buffer_jiffies to 1. Could you try this and submit the fix if that works for you? thanks, Takashi > > Regards > Raghu > > On 2/25/2022 4:53 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:52:05 +0100, > Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > On 25. 02. 22 11:39, Raghu Bankapur wrote: > > When period interrupts are disabled, while loop in snd_pcm_update_hw_ptr0() > results in the machine locking up if runtime->hw_ptr_buffer_jiffies is 0. > Validate runtime->hw_ptr_buffer_jiffies value before while loop to avoid > delta check. > > I would set hw_ptr_buffer_jiffies to 1 in this case in snd_pcm_post_start(). > > I thought of it at the first glance, but after reading the code again, > I doubt whether it makes sense at all to allow this condition. > Since the buffer size is too small and the rate is too high, we can't > calculate the buffer crossing condition accurately under such > condition. > > But, having either this zero check or minimal hw_ptr_buffer_jiffies=1 > would be good in anyway, even if we add more check for the hw_params > for no-period-wakeup case. > > thanks, > > Takashi > >
