lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] ASoC: Intel: Add period size constraint on strago board
From
Date


On 8/3/20 11:33 PM, Lu, Brent wrote:
>>
>> For avoid further misunderstanding: it's fine that CRAS *uses* such a short
>> period. It's often required for achieving a short latency.
>>
>> However, the question is whether the driver can set *only* this value for
>> making it working. IOW, if we don't have this constraint, what actually
>> happens? If the driver gives the period size alignment, wouldn't CRAS
>> choose 240?
>
> It won't. Without the constraint it becomes 432. Actually CRAS does not set
> period size specifically so the value depends on the constraint rules.

I don't get this. If the platform driver already stated 240 and 960
samples why would 432 be chosen? Doesn't this mean the constraint is not
applied?

> [ 52.011146] sound pcmC1D0p: hw_param
> [ 52.011152] sound pcmC1D0p: ACCESS 0x1
> [ 52.011155] sound pcmC1D0p: FORMAT 0x4
> [ 52.011158] sound pcmC1D0p: SUBFORMAT 0x1
> [ 52.011161] sound pcmC1D0p: SAMPLE_BITS [16:16]
> [ 52.011164] sound pcmC1D0p: FRAME_BITS [32:32]
> [ 52.011167] sound pcmC1D0p: CHANNELS [2:2]
> [ 52.011170] sound pcmC1D0p: RATE [48000:48000]
> [ 52.011173] sound pcmC1D0p: PERIOD_TIME [9000:9000]
> [ 52.011176] sound pcmC1D0p: PERIOD_SIZE [432:432]
> [ 52.011179] sound pcmC1D0p: PERIOD_BYTES [1728:1728]
> [ 52.011182] sound pcmC1D0p: PERIODS [474:474]
> [ 52.011185] sound pcmC1D0p: BUFFER_TIME [4266000:4266000]
> [ 52.011188] sound pcmC1D0p: BUFFER_SIZE [204768:204768]
> [ 52.011191] sound pcmC1D0p: BUFFER_BYTES [819072:819072]
> [ 52.011194] sound pcmC1D0p: TICK_TIME [0:0]
>
> Regards,
> Brent
>
>>
>>
>> Takashi
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-04 17:36    [W:0.163 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site