On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 08:38:38PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:20:10 +0200, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:24:59PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:43:25 +0200, Subhransu S. Prusty wrote:
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com
When appl_ptr is updated let low-level driver know, e.g. to let the low-level driver/hardware pre-fetch data opportunistically.
The existing .ack callback could be used but it would need to be extended with new arguments, resulting in multiple changes in legacy code.
I wouldn't mind changing these callers. They aren't so many, after all.
Yes this was one of the discussions we had in the past. I don't recall the conclusion so had recommened to keep as is and discuss here.
Do you think it's better to do that or use a new one :)
It's OK to change ack callback, and actually it'll be cleaner. But then it'll be a problem in the next patch, I suppose :)
Yes and one of the reason is that we are using one flag to advertise two capabilities, one is no rewind and second is appl_ptr update.
We feel we should deal with them by using two flags so that code can be made cleaner.
Thanks