[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200723155612.GC12965@vkoul-mobl>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 21:26:12 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
broonie@...nel.org, perex@...ex.cz, tiwai@...e.com,
lgirdwood@...il.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/6] ALSA: compress: add support to change codec
profile in gapless playback
On 23-07-20, 15:17, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:05:22 +0200,
> Vinod Koul wrote:
> >
> > On 23-07-20, 14:38, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:00:01 +0200,
> > > Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For gapless playback it is possible that each track can have different
> > > > codec profile with same decoder, for example we have WMA album,
> > > > we may have different tracks as WMA v9, WMA v10 and so on
> > > > Or if DSP's like QDSP have abililty to switch decoders on single stream
> > > > for each track, then this call could be used to set new codec parameters.
> > > >
> > > > Existing code does not allow to change this profile while doing gapless
> > > > playback.
> > > >
> > > > This patchset adds new SNDRV_COMPRESS_SET_CODEC_PARAMS IOCTL along with
> > > > flags in capablity structure to allow userspace to set this new
> > > > parameters required which switching codec profile, either for gapless
> > > > or cross fade usecase.
> > >
> > > One idea that came up at the previous audio conference regarding this
> > > implementation was to just allow SET_PARAMS during the stream is
> > > running (only if the driver sets the capability) instead of
> > > introducing yet a new ioctl and an ops.
> > > Would it make sense?
> >
> > That does sound good but only issue would be that we need to somehow
> > mark/document that buffer info is useless and would be discarded, how do
> > we do that?
>
> Yes, the buffer and no_wake_mode can be ignored in the gapless
> re-setup. Is your concern only about the documentation? Or something
> else needs to be changed significantly? It's a new scheme in anyway,
> so the documentation update is required...
My concern is potential abuse of API down the road, if you feel it is
okay, I am okay with the proposal
Thanks
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists