[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150420205511.GL14892@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 21:55:11 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Koro Chen <koro.chen@...iatek.com>
Cc: robh+dt@...nel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com, perex@...ex.cz,
tiwai@...e.de, srv_heupstream@...iatek.com,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
galak@...eaurora.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 3/3] ASoC: mediatek: Add AFE platform driver
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:22:24PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:51 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:14:09PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> > Ah, so the SRAM is directly memory mappable. Nice. But we have a
> > limited amount of it so need to allocate it to a device somehow based on
> > some factor I guess?
> Yes, actually SRAM is only used for the main playback path (which is
> memif "DL1") to achieve low power in real use case. Maybe you think it's
> better to not describe this in the device tree, but to choose SRAM
> automatically if memif "DL1" is chosen?
Since it's directly memory mappable is there actually any cost in
latency terms from using the SRAM in low latency cases (or did I misread
what the code was doing there)? If it can only be used with one
interface and there's no downside from using it...
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists