On 2019/7/4 下午6:03, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
Hi,
patch looks good, but commit message could be improved.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Keyon Jie wrote:
In some cases, FW might need use the host_period_bytes even no position
update ipc reqiured from driver, here add another flag for position update,
and preserve host_period_bytes for FW to use.
Speculation on what FW might do is not really needed. The
host_period_bytes field has been overloaded with multiple
semantics and this patch clears that, right. How about:
Well, to me it is flavor choice, Ranjani suggested to illustrate the use
case where the FW will use this host_period_bytes, and I agreed this
will help people to understand why we need this change.
""
Remove the special case semantics of 'host_period_bytes==0'.
Add a new field 'no_period_irq' to signal whether period elapsed
IPC should be sent and use 'host_period_bytes' only for
period size.
""
This might require corresponding FW change and ABI alignment.
This is not helpful -- we know this _is_ a minor ABI change
and needs to be aligned with FW.
It is minor change, but the FW change is still required, otherwise, we
will get extra position update IPCs which may confuse the driver, please
refer to here:
https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/pull/1592
Thanks,
~Keyon
Br, Kai
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
