On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:38:38PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:20:10 +0200, > Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:24:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:43:25 +0200, > > > Subhransu S. Prusty wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > When appl_ptr is updated let low-level driver know, e.g. to let the > > > > low-level driver/hardware pre-fetch data opportunistically. > > > > > > > > The existing .ack callback could be used but it would need to be > > > > extended with new arguments, resulting in multiple changes in legacy > > > > code. > > > > > > I wouldn't mind changing these callers. They aren't so many, after > > > all. > > > > Yes this was one of the discussions we had in the past. I don't recall the > > conclusion so had recommened to keep as is and discuss here. > > > > Do you think it's better to do that or use a new one :) > > It's OK to change ack callback, and actually it'll be cleaner. > But then it'll be a problem in the next patch, I suppose :) Yes and one of the reason is that we are using one flag to advertise two capabilities, one is no rewind and second is appl_ptr update. We feel we should deal with them by using two flags so that code can be made cleaner. Thanks -- ~Vinod _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
