Re: [PATCH 5/5] ASoC: DaVinci: pcm, fix underruns by using sram

[Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>]

Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 07:05:54PM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote:
> 
>> This is allocated too late for the "ensure that buffer size is a multiple of period size"
>> constraint.
> 
>> I have a patch after fixing other feedback.
> 
> It looks good to me - I've no issues with the patch except for the one I
> mentioned last time about considering ignoring the data in SRAM when
> reporting the current position but I'm happy either way.  The patch will
> run into the cross tree issues with the platform data like the channel
> combining one, probably best to submit patches against Kevin's tree for
> now (or wait until after the merge window).
> 
> Have you tested with PulseAudio?  If not it'd be worth giving it a spin
> - it's one of the more demanding applications.
> 
I haven't tested with PulseAudio, and I don't have time to look into it currently.
Any volunteers?

On question I had concerns davinci_pcm_hardware. It is currently for both playback
and capture. Since allocate_sram contains "davinci_pcm_hardware.period_bytes_max = size;,"
should I change davinci_pcm_hardware to playback_pcm_hardware, capture_pcm_hardware?