linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3 2/2] ASoC: Intel: Add period size constraint on strago board

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: <DM6PR11MB364259049769F6EF3B84AABD97480@DM6PR11MB3642.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:41:28 +0000
From:   "Lu, Brent" <brent.lu@...el.com>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
CC:     Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>,
        "alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "yuhsuan@...gle.com" <yuhsuan@...gle.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rojewski, Cezary" <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sam McNally <sammc@...omium.org>,
        "Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Stuart <daniel.stuart14@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yu-Hsuan Hsu <yuhsuan@...omium.org>,
        Damian van Soelen <dj.vsoelen@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/2] ASoC: Intel: Add period size constraint on strago
 board

> 
> I don't get this. If the platform driver already stated 240 and 960 samples why
> would 432 be chosen? Doesn't this mean the constraint is not applied?

Hi Pierre,

Sorry for late reply. I used following constraints in V3 patch so any period which
aligns 1ms would be accepted.

+	/*
+	 * Make sure the period to be multiple of 1ms to align the
+	 * design of firmware. Apply same rule to buffer size to make
+	 * sure alsa could always find a value for period size
+	 * regardless the buffer size given by user space.
+	 */
+	snd_pcm_hw_constraint_step(substream->runtime, 0,
+			   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIOD_SIZE, 48);
+	snd_pcm_hw_constraint_step(substream->runtime, 0,
+			   SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_BUFFER_SIZE, 48);

Regards,
Brent

> 
> > [   52.011146] sound pcmC1D0p: hw_param
> > [   52.011152] sound pcmC1D0p:   ACCESS 0x1
> > [   52.011155] sound pcmC1D0p:   FORMAT 0x4
> > [   52.011158] sound pcmC1D0p:   SUBFORMAT 0x1
> > [   52.011161] sound pcmC1D0p:   SAMPLE_BITS [16:16]
> > [   52.011164] sound pcmC1D0p:   FRAME_BITS [32:32]
> > [   52.011167] sound pcmC1D0p:   CHANNELS [2:2]
> > [   52.011170] sound pcmC1D0p:   RATE [48000:48000]
> > [   52.011173] sound pcmC1D0p:   PERIOD_TIME [9000:9000]
> > [   52.011176] sound pcmC1D0p:   PERIOD_SIZE [432:432]
> > [   52.011179] sound pcmC1D0p:   PERIOD_BYTES [1728:1728]
> > [   52.011182] sound pcmC1D0p:   PERIODS [474:474]
> > [   52.011185] sound pcmC1D0p:   BUFFER_TIME [4266000:4266000]
> > [   52.011188] sound pcmC1D0p:   BUFFER_SIZE [204768:204768]
> > [   52.011191] sound pcmC1D0p:   BUFFER_BYTES [819072:819072]
> > [   52.011194] sound pcmC1D0p:   TICK_TIME [0:0]
> >
> > Regards,
> > Brent
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Takashi
> >
> >