From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] ASoC: soc-cache: block based rbtree compression Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:26:51 +0100 Message-ID: <20110503112651.GH1762@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1304339309-28820-1-git-send-email-dp@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110503112124.GF1762@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20110503112424.GA2057@opensource.wolfsonmicro.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 5C608103821 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:26:54 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110503112424.GA2057@opensource.wolfsonmicro.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: Dimitris Papastamos Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, Liam Girdwood , Liam Girdwood List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:24:24PM +0100, Dimitris Papastamos wrote: > Yes, I will look into that. The block size will still need to be to set > to determine the maximum size of the variable length block. Otherwise > there is no way to determine if we need to allocate a new node for the > rbtree or not. I don't think that's required - if we just allocate blocks containing only contiguous registers we don't need to worry about it, the decision is just based on if there's an adjacent register we know about it.