On 2023-08-22 9:03 PM, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On 22. 08. 23 17:38, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:29:47 +0200,
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On 22. 08. 23 17:07, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:03:02 +0200,
Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On 11. 08. 23 18:48, Cezary Rojewski wrote:
+#define SNDRV_PCM_SUBFMTBIT_MSBITS_32
_SNDRV_PCM_SUBFMTBIT(MSBITS_32)
What was reason to add 32/32 format ? Subformat STD + msbits == 32
should already handle the maximal resolution. Until we do not have 64
bit formats, it seems like an useless extension.
My understanding is to distinguish the cases "we do fully support
32bit" and "we don't care". But, the end effect is same for both,
user-space would handle 32bit in both cases, so this difference won't
help much, indeed.
I don't think that we have a "do not care" situation. The applications
currently expects to use the maximal msbits for STD subformat. The
subformat should be used only to refine (downgrade) the resolution on
the driver / hw side on demand. I would just add only necessary API
extensions and save one bit for now.
Well, the current behavior (with STD) is to choose whatever 32bit
format the driver supports, and the driver may set a different value
of hw_params.msbits at hw_params. The explicit MSBITS_32 would
enforce the hw_params.msbits to be 32, otherwise hw_refine would
fail. So I see a potential difference.
I see. But if our target is to create a complete query/set msbits API,
we should cover all cases also for other formats.
I vote to replace SUBFMTBIT_MSBITS_32 to SUBFMTBIT_MSBITS_MAX as the
second bit (right after STD). The format hw parameter already defines
the maximal width. We can add SUBFMTBIT_MSBITS_32 when it's really
required. Note that MAX should be handled for all cases (not only for
S32_LE or so).
In my opinion STD already states "max". The word is not explicit either
- max in the eyes of whom? The driver'? Then the driver may reply: max
allowed e.g.: 24/32. And that translates to: fallback to STD.
Kind regards,
Czarek
