Takashi Iwai wrote: > Clemens Ladisch wrote: >> Takashi Iwai wrote: >>> [...] >>> In the commit mentioned above, we changed the logic to take +25% >>> frequency as the basis, and it my *reduce* if ep->maxpacksize is lower >>> than that. >>> >>> OTOH, if ep->maxpacksize is sane, we can rely on it rather than the >>> implicit +25% frequency. That said, maybe we can check >>> ep->maxpacksize whether it fits within the expected range, then adapt >>> it, or take +25% freq as fallback? >> >> You are describing how the current code behaves. The +25% limit _is_ >> what the code takes as the expected range. > > Well, the question is what is the "sane" range. +25% doesn't fit for > some devices. The USB audio specification _requires_ that there is as little jitter as possible. It's no surprise that some device violates the specification. But we don't know what the actual error is; whether we could adjust the packet size for this particular device only, or increase the limit for all devices, or use a completely different workaround. > If maxpacksize fits without +100% as this patch suggests, can we rely > on it instead? The packet size affect the following computations, like the number of packets per URB. I don't know how bad the effects would be. Regards, Clemens _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
