[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160115183824.GB31703@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:38:24 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To: Caleb Crome <caleb@...me.org>
Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@...i.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Xiubo Li <Xiubo.Lee@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] ASoC: fsl_ssi: Make fifo watermark and maxburst
settings device tree options
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:03:28AM -0800, Caleb Crome wrote:
> If nobody objects, we can just set the value to 4 and be done with it.
I agree. And we may apply it only to i.MX platforms with DMA if
other platform owners feel comfortable with the previous settings.
> Another question: is the watermark ever going to be different than
> maxburst? Is there any reason to have them different?
The watermark is merely a threshold to trigger a DMA request. The
only relationship with the burst size is that each burst transfer
should not carry more data than the number of empty slots; FIFO
under/overflow occurs otherwise. So it's just more efficient and
safer to set an identical value to both of them. I don't think
it will cause functional problems to set TFWM to 4 and burst size
to 1 -- It just lets DMA operate in a single data transfer mode.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists