Re: emu10k1x patch

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Tue, 25 May 2004 01:00:58 GMT,
fmoraes74@netzero.net wrote:
> 
> 188,189c188,189
> <       .period_bytes_min =     64,
> <       .period_bytes_max =     (32*1024),
> ---
> >       .period_bytes_min =     (16*1024),
> >       .period_bytes_max =     (16*1024),

are you sure this change is correct?
in the current code, the period size is always bound to
(buffer_size / 2)  (because periods_min = periods_max = 2).
so you don't have to limit period_bytes or period_size.

> 732,733c732,733
> <       //  snd_emu10k1x_intr_enable(chip, (INTE_CH_0_LOOP<<1);
> <       //  snd_emu10k1x_intr_enable(chip, INTE_CH_0_LOOP<<2);
> ---
> >       snd_emu10k1x_intr_enable(chip, (INTE_CH_0_LOOP|INTE_CH_0_HALF_LOOP)<<1);>       snd_emu10k1x_intr_enable(chip, (INTE_CH_0_LOOP|INTE_CH_0_HALF_LOOP)<<2);

hmm, it looks redundant.
the second line will override the setting of the first line.
i guess you wanted like the following?

	snd_emu10k1x_intr_enable(chip,
				(INTE_CH_0_LOOP|INTE_CH_0_HALF_LOOP)<<1 |
				(INTE_CH_0_LOOP|INTE_CH_0_HALF_LOOP)<<2);

Takashi


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click