On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 11:19:54AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Mark Brown
It occurs to me that in terms of dealing with what's going on here this probably is achieving exactly the same effect as Jon's code in that it tells ALSA that things are a bit ahead of where the buffer started.
Possibly, but I can both reproduce and eliminate the problem Jon is seeing regardless of whether or not this patch, so I'm not yet convinced.
That doesn't entirely surprise me; I'm not convinced that the original approach entirely deals with the issue rather than just making it much harder to see.
Indeed. I'm at the point where I'm far more interested in achieving "correctness" than trying to hobble together a set of conditions that appears to work most of the time.
g.