Hi, Robert Bielik <Robert.Bielik@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Enabling SOF interrupts will be a big pain :-) Well, enabling the >> interrupt itself is a no-brainer, but it'll cause terrible CPU overload. > > Oh, I see. Hmm... would it be possible to allow upper levels to config > this dynamically ? I.e. for the ALSA subsystem there is no need for > the SOF timestamps, whereas for my proposal they would be needed. > > And what kind of CPU overhead are we talking about ? The IRQs > shouldn't come more often than every 125 us, and all that is needed > is to take a timestamp value 😊 But I'm probably overlooking a lot of > stuff... that's exactly the problem. Every 125us you're gonna interrupt the cpu just to take a timestamp. Are you gonna use every timestamp? Probably not :) One thing you could do is enable SOF interrupt and look at cpu utilization. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
