9 Jan
2015
9 Jan
'15
11:12 a.m.
On 06/01/15 14:46, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
I didn't make it clear that I reworked the patch so that it was compatible with, but not dependent on, Pierre's work (viz: Timestamping Evolutions). In particular you'll see that I lifted snd_pcm_audio_tstamp_t from his patch: This means that our patches can be discussed/merged independently. Was this a reasonable approach?
Fine with me. There may be another dependency though, you probably need to provide INFO fields and the ability to query whether the hardware supports this functionality (which brings us back to the discussion on where to store those fields..)
Fair point :) But the patch, as it stands, doesn't depend on those fields.