From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/5] *** SUBJECT HERE ***ASoC: tlv320dac33: FIFO caused delay reporting and fixes Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:29:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20100423152925.GF27232@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <1272006601-24946-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906D624651 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:29:26 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1272006601-24946-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@nokia.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, lrg@slimlogic.co.uk List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:09:56AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > The values reported by the delay call has been verified by using one GPIO as a > signal, and printout from the kernel at the same time with the delay, than > based on the time scale on the scope several (>100) cases has been hand > calculated and the results were compared to the kernel reported values. > The difference were around (or less) the 10 samples, but during the bursts it > is much harder to count, but the reported value was reasonable accurate there > as well. All these look good to me.