On Thu, 12.06.08 14:08, Takashi Iwai (tiwai@xxxxxxx) wrote: > AFAIK, the problem here is that the handling of hwptr isn't > inconsistent in the pulse plugin. The definition of hwptr is the > point being played (or at least, the point where it was already > processed). So, it's fine that you take the network latency into > account for calculation of hwptr like the pulse delay callback > actually does. > > But, then, pointer callback also must contain the same latency. If > the hwptr with network latency doesn't work well, then delay callback > shouldn't have the latency as well. But we need the network latency in there, because it is necessary for doing a/v synchronization. The network latency can be quite substantial. The "hw_ptr/appl_ptr" is just too simple to cover the networked cases. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
