On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:22:24PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote: > On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:51 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:14:09PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote: > > Ah, so the SRAM is directly memory mappable. Nice. But we have a > > limited amount of it so need to allocate it to a device somehow based on > > some factor I guess? > Yes, actually SRAM is only used for the main playback path (which is > memif "DL1") to achieve low power in real use case. Maybe you think it's > better to not describe this in the device tree, but to choose SRAM > automatically if memif "DL1" is chosen? Since it's directly memory mappable is there actually any cost in latency terms from using the SRAM in low latency cases (or did I misread what the code was doing there)? If it can only be used with one interface and there's no downside from using it...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
