On 3/21/17 2:56 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > I: [pulseaudio] alsa-sink.c: Using 1.0 fragments of size 352832 bytes > (2000.18ms), buffer size is 352832 bytes (2000.18ms) > I: [pulseaudio] alsa-sink.c: Time scheduling watermark is 20.00ms > I: [pulseaudio] alsa-sink.c: Driver does not support hardware volume > control, falling back to software volume control. > I: [pulseaudio] alsa-sink.c: Driver does not support hardware mute > control, falling back to software mute control. > I: [alsa-sink-HdmiLpeAudio] core-util.c: Successfully enabled SCHED_RR > scheduling for thread, with priority 5. > I: [alsa-sink-HdmiLpeAudio] alsa-sink.c: Starting playback. > I: [alsa-sink-HdmiLpeAudio] (alsa-lib)pcm_hw.c: SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_HWSYNC > failed (-32) Humm, single period and hw_sync failed, this could be testing the robustness of the single-period code and its mapping on multiple DMA descriptors? I haven't looked at the alsa module in eons but can't the number of periods be forced to two with module parameters while keeping the timer-based schedulng?
