From: Jiada Wang jiada_wang@mentor.com
period_pos can always be calculated by byte_pos and byte_per_period, there is no reason to maintain this variable in rsnd_dai_stream. Further more, if the passed 'byte' amount to rsnd_ssi_pointer_update() is more than byte_per_period. the calculation of next_period_byte isn't correct.
This patch removes period_pos from rsnd_ssi and calculates next_period_byte with consideration of actual byte_pos value.
Signed-off-by: Jiada Wang jiada_wang@mentor.com --- sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c b/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c index cbf3bf3..f212024 100644 --- a/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c +++ b/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c @@ -80,7 +80,6 @@ struct rsnd_ssi { unsigned int usrcnt;
int byte_pos; - int period_pos; int byte_per_period; int next_period_byte; }; @@ -421,7 +420,6 @@ static void rsnd_ssi_pointer_init(struct rsnd_mod *mod, struct snd_pcm_runtime *runtime = rsnd_io_to_runtime(io);
ssi->byte_pos = 0; - ssi->period_pos = 0; ssi->byte_per_period = runtime->period_size * runtime->channels * samples_to_bytes(runtime, 1); @@ -453,13 +451,12 @@ static bool rsnd_ssi_pointer_update(struct rsnd_mod *mod,
if (byte_pos >= ssi->next_period_byte) { struct snd_pcm_runtime *runtime = rsnd_io_to_runtime(io); + int period_pos = byte_pos / ssi->byte_per_period;
- ssi->period_pos++; - ssi->next_period_byte += ssi->byte_per_period; + ssi->next_period_byte = (period_pos + 1) * ssi->byte_per_period;
- if (ssi->period_pos >= runtime->periods) { + if (period_pos >= runtime->periods) { byte_pos = 0; - ssi->period_pos = 0; ssi->next_period_byte = ssi->byte_per_period; }