At Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:26:01 +0530,
Harsha priya gupta wrote:
>
> I implemented the copy function and immediately transfered the user block data
> to the hardware.
>
> Correct me if am wrong;
> .pointer implementation - passes the current buffer pointer. When the .pointer
> function returns the size of the buffer = user buffer size logically I need to
> expect the hardware to send an interrupt because buffer is consumed and I
> should call snd_pcm_period_elapsed after that.
>
> what would happen if i call the snd_pcm_period_elapsed from the pointer
> function once the buffer is consumed from hardware. Would that be right? This
> is what i am trying to do
The logic is reversed.
The pointer callback is a passive one that does nothing but returning
the current h/w buffer position. This is called either from
snd_pcm_period_elapsed() or at the PCM status update.
You must call snd_pcm_period_elapsed() somewhere in your driver
*explicitly* at the timing that one period is finished. Usually, this
is done in an IRQ handler the h/w generates at the period ("fragment",
"half-buffer", or whatever) boundary.
And note that the valid value from the pointer callback is between 0
and buffer_size-1 as it handles the buffer as a ring-buffer. The
value buffer_size is invalid.
Takashi
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:39:31 +0530,
> Harsha priya gupta wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone give me a clue as to when i would get such an error?
>
> ... only if you give more clue what exactly you did.
>
> In general, it implies that an interrupt isn't issued properly at PCM
> period boundary.
>
> Takashi
>
> --
> -Harsha
>
>
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
