At Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:00:06 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > 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. That's why I suggest to fix hwptr to consider the network latency in the first place. > The "hw_ptr/appl_ptr" is just too simple to cover the networked > cases. Likely. The hwptr/applptr model was designed for PCI-DMA h/w, and doesn't suit with the queue style implementation, indeed. IOW, it's optimized for mmap-style access. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
