From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] ASoC: davinci-pcm: add cpu-dai health callbacks Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 19:54:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20111002185434.GH2857@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18FD510384B for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 20:54:38 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Ben Gardiner Cc: davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Sekhar Nori , Liam Girdwood List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 05:23:02PM -0400, Ben Gardiner wrote: > The CPU DAIs available to the davinci-pcm driver have the capability of > detecting and reporting errors. > Add callbacks to the struct davinci_pcm_dma_params passed to davinci-pcm > from the CPU DAI. This looks like something we should be doing at the subsystem level, the DaVinci is far from unique in having the ability to detect errors at the DAI level. > This has several shortcomings: > 1) It bubbles up to the user as underruns, not a fatal error -- some may prefer > the former, I realize but the latter is more attractive to me. Same problem > as with the previous patch in this series. Why do you prefer a fatal error, and how do you distinguish a fatal error from a glitch?