- Updated the patches by incorporating review comments from Takashi Iwai-san
[PATCH 1/5] pcm: direct: Add generic hw_ptr_alignment function for dmix, dshare and dsnoop
[Takashi Iwai:]
> The patch description needs rephrasing. What actually this does is to move the code from pcm_dmix.c to pcm_direct.c
> and its header so that the helper code can be re-used by other direct-PCM plugins.
- Commit message is rephrased as suggested.
- New commit: [PATCH v2 1/6] pcm: direct: Add generic hw_ptr_alignment function for
[PATCH 2/5] pcm: dshare: Added "hw_ptr_alignment" option in configuration for alignment of slave pointers
[Takashi Iwai:]
> Again, this patch description is too ambiguous.
> And, if it enables the hw_ptr_alignment option, update the documentation as well.
- Commit message is explained in detail for the changes done.
- Documentation updated.
- New commit: [PATCH v2 2/6] pcm: dshare: Added "hw_ptr_alignment" option in
[PATCH 3/5] pcm: dsnoop: Added "hw_ptr_alignment" option in configuration for slave pointer alignment
[Takashi Iwai:]
> Ditto as patch 2, the description is too ambiguous, and the update of documentation is missing.
> It's not good to change the helper function semantics out of sudden, even without any description.
- Commit message is explained in detail for the changes done.
- Documentation updated.
- Divided the patch with commit ("pcm: dsnoop: Add hw_ptr_alignment option in configuration")
into additional patch commit ("pcm: direct: Round up of slave_app_ptr pointer if buffer")
- Usecase scenario is described for the changes done in helper function.
- New commit:
[PATCH v2 3/6] pcm: dsnoop: Added "hw_ptr_alignment" option in
[PATCH v2 4/6] pcm: direct: Round up of slave_app_ptr pointer if buffer
[PATCH 4/5] pcm: restructuring sw params function
[Takashi Iwai:]
> I see no reason to do that. Please describe.
- Commit message is explained in detail why reformating was done.
- New commit: [PATCH v2 5/6] pcm: restructuring sw params function
[PATCH 5/5] pcm: Update pcm->avail_min with needed_slave_avail_min, after reading unaligned frames
[Takashi Iwai:]
> This kind of changes in the core code should be avoided as much as possible, especially if it's only relevant with the specific plugins.
> Sorry, this isn't convincing enough. If this is a MUST, please clarify better.
- Commit message is explained in detail with the generic usecase and specific use case we came across.
- New commit: [PATCH v2 6/6] pcm: Update pcm->avail_min with needed_slave_avail_min,
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
