On 9/7/2018 5:53 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 12:16:26PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 01:03:55PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> From: Akshu Agrawal <akshu.agrawal@xxxxxxx> >>> >>> [ Upstream commit 9fb4c2bf130b922c77c16a8368732699799c40de ] >>> >>> Take into account the base delay set in pointer callback. >>> >>> There are cases where a pointer function populates >>> runtime->delay, such as: >>> ./sound/pci/hda/hda_controller.c >>> ./sound/soc/intel/atom/sst-mfld-platform-pcm.c >> >> I'm worried that if anyone notices this at all they will have already >> compensated for the delays in userspace and therefore this will cause >> them to see problems as they get double compenstation for delays. > > But what happens when they update to a newer Stable? They're going to > hit that issue anyways. > Drivers which had exposed this delay in pointer function but have compensated for the issue in userspace are likely see the problem of double delay when the update happens. I Don't know what is the best way to communicate that issue is fixed in kernel and usersapce compensation isn't required. But more likely I think the delay was just getting left out and there wouldn't have been a compensation in userspace. Thanks, Akshu
