On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 02:20:25PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 03:43:13PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 07:31:37PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > I am somewhat torn between a comment and renaming the function. I > > > > will try to add some sort of reasonable comment. > > > > This doesn't sound like it's really acknowledging an IRQ - you have > > > level triggered interrupts here so if the interrupt isn't acknowledged > > > the interrupt handler will constantly be called. > > > It kinda is acking the IRQ just at the firmware level, not the > > hardware level. The physical IRQ all gets acked through regmap > > so that is all handled. This code here lets the firmware know, > > which it will then use to decide whether it should send a new IRQ > > or not. > > That's not an interrupt acknowlegement, it's a request for more data. Well a request to let us know about there being more data. We will keep consuming data as it is generated until we reach a point where we have less than one fragment, then we set this and wait for an IRQ to say we have more than a fragment again. > > > I could perhaps rename the function to > > wm_adsp_buffer_request_irq? and buf->irq_ack to buf->irq_count? > > That might make the usage a little more clear. > > That might be a bit clearer, yes - it looks like this is a mailbox on > the DSP that you're kicking? Effectively you could think of it as a mailbox, I haven't looked much at the framework but I suspect it is a little overkill for what we want to do here. Thanks, Charles _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
