On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:59:52PM +0000, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:06:58PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Yes, but as fairly recently discussed somewhere on the lists (and IIRC > > actually fixed) approximately no users expect or want that behaviour - > True its an odd behavior - the point just was to change the actual behavior > as little from current state as one might expect. Anywa - will fix it up Unfortunately the current state will often reflect a change from the original or at least expected behaviour. > then and resend - in this particular case it really makes little Thanks. > difference - assuming that both the minimum and maximum value were > suitable to ensure that the writes had compled or it was actually a failure. It can create confusion where the delay comes from a datasheet or tech note and people are left wondering why a different value is used by the kernel, and in a lot of the paths with delays in them are pretty sensitive to the overall time to run so there's a strong desire to keep the delays as low as possible.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
