On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Roberto Fichera kernel@tekno-soft.it wrote:
On 11/06/2015 12:30 AM, Caleb Crome wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Roberto Fichera kernel@tekno-soft.it wrote:
On 11/06/2015 12:21 AM, Caleb Crome wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Roberto Fichera kernel@tekno-soft.it wrote:
On 11/05/2015 11:49 PM, Caleb Crome wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Roberto Fichera kernel@tekno-soft.it wrote: > On 11/05/2015 11:25 PM, Caleb Crome wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Roberto Fichera kernel@tekno-soft.it wrote: >>> On 11/05/2015 10:34 PM, Caleb Crome wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Roberto Fichera kernel@tekno-soft.it wrote: >>>>> On 11/05/2015 12:30 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Roberto Fichera kernel@tekno-soft.it wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Following your suggestion, I've increased the buffer size to 2K and set the period to fifo_length - 2 (13), >>>>>>> with that I'm now running substantially smooth except 3 EVTERR on RX DMA over 4 million of interrupts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Nicolin! I'm quite happy now! >>>>>> That's good progress, Roberto. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be nice if you and Caleb could post the patches to the mailing list. >>>>>> >>>> Yes, when I get something quite solid, I'd like to submit it all to >>>> the list, and hope to get it into the kernel so nobody else has to go >>>> through this pain again. >>>> >>>>> Indeed! Now the TDM is stable, I've also found the reason of the EVTERRs, which was related to some stale >>>>> code I've used to enable and disable both RDMAE and TDMAE bits to try to reset the transfers. >>>>> Once removed that code everything is looks ok now. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding patches, well, from my side there isn't nothing special compared to the original fsl_ssi.c code. >>>>> I'm basically running against a very skinny fsl_ssi.c version, I've just setup a bit larger DMA buffer, from >>>>> 16bytes to 2K, and now reduced the DMA period to 8 because I'm mostly comfortable with that size to simplify >>>>> sampling exchange against DAHDI subsystem within my DMA callbacks. >>>>> >>>>> In a few words, my problem was related due to a DMA buffer too small. >>>>> >>>>> What eventually might be interesting to have is the INTRMASK and EVTERR DMA setting to trigger DMA >>>>> related errors, but I guess this need to be discussed elsewhere. >>>> I have implemented roberto's patch on the 4.2 kernel, and I get a huge >>>> number of EVTERR interrupts. Something like 7200/second at 16kHz >>>> sample rate. But strangely, the audio seems to be correct. >>> I've notice that clearing the EVTERR bit seems restarting the given SDMA. >>> >>>> My patch is slightly different in that it just enables EVTERR for all >>>> channels, not just for the SSI. Might as well see if there are any >>>> other problems. >>> Oh yes! This will overload the SDMA isr. >> It didn't seem to. There didn't seem to be any other DMA happening in >> my system, definitely none that made the EVTRR trigger. However, I >> changed it back to the way you had it. No differences, still got a >> TON of EVTERRs. > This might be related to SDMA request when another is pending. > >>> How bigger is your audio buffer? >>> In your case I guess you will need something like 16KHz * 16 channels * >>> 2 bytes (16bits) = 512K minimum. >>> I would try to start from 1MB or maybe more. >> That's 2 seconds of audio! We definitely need less buffering than >> that. We pretty much need a latency of 100ms, worst case, or 1600 >> frames, or 51,200 bytes. > I haven't checked in detail how the DAI buffering is working, but likely > the samples are passed not in buffer size chunks but instead with less > granularity. Having a large buffer gives more chance to the SSI to not > overlap DMA requests, hence no more EVTERRs. > > I would give it a try. >> I did change the max buffer size to 1MB though, but I'm not sure how >> much is actually being used. > I guess it's 64K, look for IMX_SSI_DMABUF_SIZE. > > Exactly, I changed that to 1024*1024, but still I don't get zero EVTERRs, even when I set my periods long and number of periods high.
They decreased?
the big win was going to dual fifo, but they're still there at something like 17/second.
What about your current fifo_depth? Are you using the full length?
Do you mean in the SSI watermark, or some other FIFO depth?
Sorry! SSI watermark.
I'm currently operating at watermark = 6 & DMA maxburst of 12 (dual fifo mode).
That's the best performing so far.
Have you already played to see if increasing the watermark to 8 and maxburst to 15 decrease the EVTERRs?
16kHz, wm=8, maxburst = 15: total data integrity failure. data coming out the port is not in order. Also, get EVTERRs on ch 1 and ch 2.
48kHz, wm=8, maxburst = 16: 100 EVTERRs/sec, but data is right.
16kHz, wm=8, maxburst = 16: 0 EVTERRs/sec but data on SSI is wrong.
48kHz, wm=7, maxburst = 14: total system lockup. (might be infinite printk's or something, but it's dead).
Interestingly, even with I'm getting many EVTERRs, I'm not getting SSI FIFO under/overruns. How is that possible?
Will try more tomorrow...
-caleb
I haven't check how the SDMA script works in dual fifo mode, but I think that in this operating mode, maxburst might be also 16.
-Caleb _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel