lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [10]   [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 8/6/20 11:41 AM, Lu, Brent wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> Hi Pierre,
>
> Sorry for late reply. I used following constraints in V3 patch so any period which
> aligns 1ms would be accepted.
>
> + /*
> + * Make sure the period to be multiple of 1ms to align the
> + * design of firmware. Apply same rule to buffer size to make
> + * sure alsa could always find a value for period size
> + * regardless the buffer size given by user space.
> + */
> + snd_pcm_hw_constraint_step(substream->runtime, 0,
> + SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIOD_SIZE, 48);
> + snd_pcm_hw_constraint_step(substream->runtime, 0,
> + SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_BUFFER_SIZE, 48);

432 samples is 9ms, I don't have a clue why/how CRAS might ask for this
value.

It'd be a bit odd to add constraints just for the purpose of letting
userspace select a sensible value.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-10 17:04    [W:0.115 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site