linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: soc-pcm: Use delay set in pointer function

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180730155030.GP5789@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:50:30 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Akshu Agrawal <Akshu.Agrawal@....com>,
        "moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM..." 
        <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, Alexander.Deucher@....com,
        djkurtz@...omium.org, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: soc-pcm: Use delay set in pointer
 function

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 05:32:21PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> That said, if delay callback of CPU dai provides the additional delay,
> the patch does correct thing.  OTOH, if CPU dai provides the base
> delay instead, we need to clarify that it's rather a must; the delay
> calculation in pointer callback becomes bogus in this scenario.

Part of the theory here is that every component might have a delay
independently of the rest and we need to add them all together to figure
out what the system as a whole will see.  Personally I'd rather just
have everything use a callack consistently to avoid confusion.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)