[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5hsh0f1p30.wl-tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 17:11:47 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Mike Brady <mikebrady@...com.net>
Cc: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, f.fainelli@...il.com,
julia.lawall@...6.fr, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eric@...olt.net,
linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
nishka.dasgupta_ug18@...oka.edu.in,
Kirill Marinushkin <k.marinushkin@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v2] staging: bcm2835-audio: interpolate audio delay
On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 16:57:07 +0100,
Mike Brady wrote:
>
> > One another thing I'd like to point out is that the value given in the
> > patch is nothing but an estimated position, optimistically calculated
> > via the system timer. Mike and I had already discussion in another
> > thread, and another possible option would be to provide the proper
> > timestamp-vs-hwptr pair, instead of updating the timestamp always at
> > the status read.
>
> Agreed — that would give the caller the information needed to do the
> interpolation for themselves if desired.
And now I wonder whether the problem is still present with the latest
code. There was a (kind of) regression in this regard when we
introduced the fine-grained hardware timestamping, but it should have
been addressed by the commit 20e3f985bb875fea4f86b04eba4b6cc29bfd6b71
ALSA: pcm: update tstamp only if audio_tstamp changed
Could you double-check whether the tstamp field gets still updated
even if no hwptr (and delay) is changed?
thanks,
Takashi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists