On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 14:20 -0700, John L. Utz III wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:47:34 +0200 "Joachim Förster" mls.JOFT@gmx.de wrote:
My question is: Does the architecture described below make sense/is reasonable with ALSA and Linux?
i think you might have to answer an earlier question first; 'does it make sense to call this an ac97 controller?' I dont recall seeing a ring buffer as part of the ac97 standard. i'd suggest that you take the time to flesh out completely how the ring buffer is supposed to replace dma and ram while still presenting an ac97 set of verbs because i am stuck with the gut feeling that you will some important things will have to be really different.
Hmmm, well is there a standard document for AC97 controllers, too? So far, I know about the AC97 Codec standard, only. Anyway, just ignore the "AC97" in front of "controller" - a custom controller for an AC97 Codec, which uses the described way of operation and features. The/My question is, if such a thing is reasonable and fits into ALSA/Linux.
I read, that many applications don't work, if MMAP mode is not supported and classic read/write (copy()/silence()) is used, only. Is there a black list of apps, which don't work?
i doubt seriously that such a thing exists, how could it? new apps are written everyday, old apps in binary only form get 'shimmed' forward with comaptibility libraries to work in newer operating systems.
So, not using MMAP mode is just a no-go ... ? I don't want to write a driver which cannot be used with most ALSA applications out there.
Joachim