[alsa-devel] Problems with safe API and snd-cs46xx
tiwai at suse.de
Tue Sep 8 15:21:52 CEST 2009
At Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:18:13 +0800,
Raymond Yau wrote:
> I think use this so call "default value" is not a correct method for media
> player application.
Right, that's my estimation, too. The current "default" parameter
choice is to select the smaller period rather than the larger buffer.
This should be inverted, but changing such global behavior is
dangerous regarding regressions...
> You are actually trying to exploit the limit of hardware ( lowest latency )
> It may work on your fast machine, but fail on other user's slow and heavy
> loaded machine
> CS46xx_NEW_DSP support multi channels
> At least you should test with surround51 playback and stereo capture
> according to the test performed by darkbrain who want to write a hardware
> accelerated version of openal , the card seem can run only about 10
> instances of surround40 concurrently
> 2009/9/8 Sophie Hamilton <sophie-alsa at theblob.org>
> > On 9/8/09, Takashi Iwai <tiwai at suse.de> wrote:
> > > At Mon, 7 Sep 2009 20:06:37 +0100,
> > >
> > > Sophie Hamilton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 9/7/09, Takashi Iwai <tiwai at suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > At Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:04:12 +0100,
> > > > > Sophie Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > Turns out that a value of 64 is the optimum value.
> > > > >
> > > > > How did you determine it ? :)
> > > >
> > > > Well, I have the actual hardware - at least, one of the chips it
> > > > supports - which is how I got involved in this bug in the first place.
> > > > (The Turtle Beach Santa Cruz uses a CS4630.) A value of 32 didn't work
> > > > when the default period side from ALSA is used; the next highest power
> > > > of two, 64, does. As all the values I've seen in the kernel for the
> > > > minimum period size are powers of two, I'm assuming that this is the
> > > > lowest it can be. (I don't know much about ALSA, bear in mind; this is
> > > > my first venture into ALSA programming *and* kernel patches.)
> > >
> > > I asked it just because your description alone wasn't convincing
> > > enough. That is, "it just works good for me" is no good explanation.
> > > The test was done on a single machine with a single application.
> > > It's possible that it would work on a monster 8GHz machine with
> > > another soundcard with a cs46xx chip with another application.
> > I take your point. However, if this was changed to 32, you'd
> > presumably also need to change the default period/buffer size used by
> > ALSA, as otherwise it would seem to be too low; my system doesn't like
> > it. I'd suggest defaulting to 64, and then if any program has a
> > specific latency need, they can test for underruns with different
> > period sizes and find the best one.
> > > However, as already mentioned, I find changing the value to 64 is
> > > somehow rational. But, it's still a question whether this is the only
> > > fix...
> > Sadly, I don't know the answer to this one. But if there's anything I
> > can do to help, let me know.
> > > > > > This should be the final patch. How should I go about submitting
> > this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please give a proper patch summary, too.
> > > > > Also, it'd be more helpful if you give an example what actually
> > > > > your patch fixes (e.g. audacious, etc).
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by a "proper patch summary". Is there
> > > > anywhere I should read that specifies the format of a proper patch
> > > > summary?
> > >
> > > A patch should have a single line summary to describe what it does.
> > > Take a look at $LINUX/Documentation/SubmittingPatches for details.
> > Okay. What I might do, given the instructions in the file, is send
> > another email that conforms to all of the things in that file -
> > subject line, CCs, etc. (for example, it says I should have CCed my
> > patch to linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org too, and Linus ; obviously
> > that'd have been a bad idea with the way my email was formatted now,
> > but would it be a good idea to do those things now?)
> > > > As for what it fixes, it fixes a problem in the case where neither a
> > > > period size nor a buffer size is passed to ALSA, instead using the
> > > > defaults provided.
> > [snipped long explanation]
> > > >
> > > > Does this help?
> > >
> > > Yes, but a bit more concisely if possible, please.
> > > The text will be recorded as a GIT changelog forever. This is the
> > > best place where people see to track down the changes over tree.
> > Gotcha. How about:
> > "Fix minimum period size for cs46xx cards. This fixes a problem in the
> > case where neither a period size nor a buffer size is passed to ALSA;
> > this is the case in Audacious, OpenAL, and others."
> > Or is that *too* concise?
> > Thanks for your comments,
> > - Sophie,
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alsa-devel mailing list
> > Alsa-devel at alsa-project.org
> > http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> Alsa-devel at alsa-project.org
More information about the Alsa-devel