On 6/12/17 1:35 AM, Takashi Sakamoto wrote:

Hi,

I have a question to your patch, in a point of the relationship between queued PCM frames and position of appl_ptr.

On Jun 12 2017 14:27, Subhransu S. Prusty wrote:

...

From: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com

Add new hw_params flag to explicitly tell driver that rewinds will never be used. This can be used by low-level driver to optimize DMA operations and reduce power consumption. Use this flag only when data written in ring buffer will never be invalidated, e.g. any update of appl_ptr is final.

Note that the update of appl_ptr include both a read/write data operation as well as snd_pcm_forward() whose behavior is not modified.

Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Ramesh Babu ramesh.babu@intel.com Signed-off-by: Subhransu S. Prusty subhransu.s.prusty@intel.com

---

v1->v2: No change

Since the ack callback change is now dropped and "ALSA: pcm: conditionally avoid mmap of control data" will be dropped with recent change "ALSA: pcm: Suppress status/control mmap when ack ops is present", I think this patch can be merged independently.

include/sound/pcm.h | 1 + include/uapi/sound/asound.h | 1 + sound/core/pcm_native.c | 8 ++++++++ 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/sound/pcm.h b/include/sound/pcm.h index 79fedf517070..c1e2b87cd409 100644 --- a/include/sound/pcm.h +++ b/include/sound/pcm.h @@ -368,6 +368,7 @@ struct snd_pcm_runtime { unsigned int rate_num; unsigned int rate_den; unsigned int no_period_wakeup: 1;

• unsigned int no_rewinds:1; /* -- SW params -- */ int tstamp_mode; /* mmap timestamp is updated */

diff --git a/include/uapi/sound/asound.h b/include/uapi/sound/asound.h index fd41697cb4d3..c697ff90450d 100644 --- a/include/uapi/sound/asound.h +++ b/include/uapi/sound/asound.h @@ -365,6 +365,7 @@ struct snd_pcm_info { #define SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAMS_NORESAMPLE (1<<0) /* avoid rate resampling */ #define SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAMS_EXPORT_BUFFER (1<<1) /* export buffer */ #define SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAMS_NO_PERIOD_WAKEUP (1<<2) /* disable period wakeups */ +#define SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAMS_NO_REWINDS (1<<3) /* disable rewinds */ struct snd_interval { unsigned int min, max; diff --git a/sound/core/pcm_native.c b/sound/core/pcm_native.c index bf5d0f2acfb9..0e8b7ea0d38d 100644 --- a/sound/core/pcm_native.c +++ b/sound/core/pcm_native.c @@ -554,6 +554,8 @@ static int snd_pcm_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, runtime->no_period_wakeup = (params->info & SNDRV_PCM_INFO_NO_PERIOD_WAKEUP) && (params->flags & SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAMS_NO_PERIOD_WAKEUP);

• runtime->no_rewinds =

•    (params->flags & SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAMS_NO_REWINDS) ? 1 : 0;
    bits = snd_pcm_format_physical_width(runtime->format);
  runtime->sample_bits = bits;
  

@@ -2521,6 +2523,9 @@ static snd_pcm_sframes_t snd_pcm_playback_rewind(struct snd_pcm_substream *subst if (frames == 0) return 0;

• if (runtime->no_rewinds)

•    return 0;
  

• snd_pcm_stream_lock_irq(substream);
  ret = do_pcm_hwsync(substream);
  if (!ret)
  

@@ -2539,6 +2544,9 @@ static snd_pcm_sframes_t snd_pcm_capture_rewind(struct snd_pcm_substream *substr if (frames == 0) return 0;

• if (runtime->no_rewinds)

•    return 0;
  

• snd_pcm_stream_lock_irq(substream);
  ret = do_pcm_hwsync(substream);
  if (!ret)
  

In my understanding, your intention for this patch is to prevent queue PCM frames in PCM buffer from being dropped. You have a plan to use 'struct snd_pcm_ops.ack' to notify the number of available PCM frames in the buffer to your hardware. I don't know exactly about design of your hardware because Intel developers never declare it.

Well, For playback PCM substream, the patch satisfies your intension. On the other hand, for capture PCM substream, it doesn't.

See below diagram. In this case, one PCM buffer consists of three period. The 'equal' sign represents queued PCM frames. You can see the relationship between hwptr and applptr is inverse for playback/capture substream.

For playback: 0 1p 2p 3p |--======|========|==------| ^ ^ hwptr applptr

For capture: 0 1p 2p 3p |-----===|========|=====---| ^ ^ applptr hwptr

When operate rewinding, for playback substream, some queued PCM frames are dropped.

For playback: 0 1p 2p 3p |--======|===_____|__------| ^ ^ hwptr applptr<-

The underscore sign represents the dropped PCM frames. But for capture substream, no queued PCM frames are dropped.

For capture: 0 1p 2p 3p |#####===|========|=====---| ^ ^ applptr<- hwptr

The sharp sign represent PCM frames which are available again for the application.

In your case, for capture substream, 'forward' operation should be avoided because it can drop queued PCM frames.

For capture: 0 1p 2p 3p |-----___|__======|=====---| ^ ^ ->applptr hwptr

If data transmission in your hardware somehow depends on a callback of 'struct snd_pcm_ops.ack()'. I can imagine a unit of data transmission as an disadvantage of the forward operation.

If describing the detail design of your hardware, you might get more helps.

• I intentionally ignore discussion about burstness of data transmission and accuracy of hwptr.

You are probably reading too much into this. The intent is to optimize DMA operations where the hardware now knows both hw_ptr and appl_ptr. there is no use of the .ack() for copies into intermediate buffers and the code for rewind on capture is largely for consistency - we've never seen anyone using rewind on capture on DSP-based platforms.

On 6/12/17 1:50 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote:

Subhransu S. Prusty wrote:

...

Add new hw_params flag to explicitly tell driver that rewinds will never be used. [...]

...

+++ b/sound/core/pcm_native.c @@ -2521,6 +2523,9 @@ static snd_pcm_sframes_t snd_pcm_playback_rewind(struct snd_pcm_substream *subst if (frames == 0) return 0;

• if (runtime->no_rewinds)

• return 0;
  

Doing a rewind when you've promised not to is an error. So why doesn't this return an error code?

there were earlier patches where we switched from 0 to an error code based on Takashi's feedback. I am not that convinced that applications actually interpret signed frames as error codes and might interpret negative values literally, but I am not going to lay on the tracks on this one. If we do move to error codes then we might want to update the documentation to make the behavior self-explanatory.