13 Dec
2016
13 Dec
'16
12:49 p.m.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:43:04 +0100, Alan Young wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for the delay. I too got sidetracked by other work.
On 28/11/16 19:11, Takashi Iwai wrote:
@@ -1083,15 +1115,17 @@ static int snd_pcm_rate_status(snd_pcm_t *pcm, snd_pcm_status_t * status) status->state = SND_PCM_STATE_RUNNING; status->trigger_tstamp = rate->trigger_tstamp; }
- snd_pcm_rate_sync_hwptr(pcm);
- snd_pcm_rate_sync_hwptr0(rate, status->hw_ptr);
This can't work.
I can fix it in my side, but OTOH, this made me wonder how you tested the patch...
Why do you think that cannot work? I am pretty sure it is working just fine for us but I am sure that it is possible that I have missed something.
Compare the argument you passed there and the function definition, it's obvious :)
Takashi