At Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:11:39 +0200,
I wrote:
>
> At Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:09:27 +0200 (CEST),
> Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
> > > I have fixed all of the other bugs. If I take out the position
> > > estimation code it fails.
> > >
> > > Jaroslav hasn't commented on this yet....
> >
> > Appearently, FIFO is too big. I'm working on some changes to take account
> > fifo_size to the jiffies based check. Please, set fifo_size correctly in
> > your driver. USB drivers with big "URB FIFOs" should be changed as well,
> > too.
>
> Ah good, that's what I was thinking to fix up later :)
After thinking twice, I found that we basically don't need much
jiffies testing for that kind of hardware because it can't report
bad values anyway.
A test patch is below. It suppose that such hardware should have
SNDRV_PCM_INFO_BATCH in runtime->hw.info (although most drivers don't
set it yet).
Comments?
Takashi
---
diff --git a/sound/core/pcm_lib.c b/sound/core/pcm_lib.c
index 63d088f..a2a792c 100644
--- a/sound/core/pcm_lib.c
+++ b/sound/core/pcm_lib.c
@@ -249,6 +249,12 @@ static int snd_pcm_update_hw_ptr_interrupt(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
new_hw_ptr = hw_base + pos;
}
}
+ /* Skip the jiffies check for hardwares with BATCH flag.
+ * Such hardware usually just increases the position at each IRQ,
+ * thus it can't give any strange position.
+ */
+ if (runtime->hw.info & SNDRV_PCM_INFO_BATCH)
+ goto no_jiffies_check;
hdelta = new_hw_ptr - old_hw_ptr;
jdelta = jiffies - runtime->hw_ptr_jiffies;
if (((hdelta * HZ) / runtime->rate) > jdelta + HZ/100) {
@@ -272,6 +278,7 @@ static int snd_pcm_update_hw_ptr_interrupt(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream)
hw_base -= hw_base % runtime->buffer_size;
delta = 0;
}
+ no_jiffies_check:
if (delta > runtime->period_size + runtime->period_size / 2) {
hw_ptr_error(substream,
"Lost interrupts? "
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
