Re: [PATCH 2/2] Improve hw_params documentation

[Andrew Eikum <aeikum@codeweavers.com>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:31:03AM +0800, Raymond Yau wrote:
> 2011/11/17 Andrew Eikum <aeikum@codeweavers.com>:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:08:37PM +0100, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> >> On 11/16/2011 10:31 PM, Andrew Eikum wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:20:07PM +0100, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> >> >> Andrew Eikum wrote:
> >> >>> +++ b/include/pcm.h
> >> >>> @@ -44,8 +44,20 @@ extern "C" {
> >> >>>
> >> >>>  /** PCM generic info container */
> >> >>>  typedef struct _snd_pcm_info snd_pcm_info_t;
> >> >>> -/** PCM hardware configuration space container */
> >> >>> +
> >> >>> +/** PCM hardware configuration space container
> >> >>> + *
> >> >>> + *  snd_pcm_hw_params_t is an opaque structure which contains a set of possible
> >> >>> + *  PCM hardware configurations. For example, a given instance might include a
> >> >>> + *  range of buffer sizes, a range of period sizes, and a set of several sample
> >> >>> + *  formats. Some subset of all possible combinations these sets may be valid,
> >> >>> + *  but not necessarily any combination will be valid.
> >> >>> + *
> >> >>> + *  No validation is done by the various snd_pcm_hw_params_set* functions.
> >> >>
> >> >> These functions do validate the value that the application is trying to set
> >> >> and adjust all other dependent limits.
> >> >
> >> > I didn't find that to be the case in my testing, at least between
> >> > periods, period_size, and buffer_size. I've attached a test program
> >> > here.
> >>
> >> I can reproduce this.
> >>
> >> Try running the program with LIBASOUND_DEBUG=1; it appears that there is
> >> a bug in the rate plugin.  (Normal programs actually set their rate ...)
> >
> > This doesn't change the output in any way. I checked the Arch Linux
> > alsa-lib build script[1] and it doesn't seem to disable debugging in
> > any obvious way. Do I have to explicitly enable debugging output and
> > rebuild?
> >
> > $ LIBASOUND_DEBUG=1 ./alsa_period_count
> > min_buffer_frames: 80
> > set max buffer size: 80
> > snd_pcm_hw_params: -12
> > $
> >
> > [1] http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/alsa-lib
> >
> 
> There is a bug in your program which set the buffer_size_max to buffer_size_min
> 
>     err = snd_pcm_hw_params_set_periods(pcm, hw_params, 10, 0);
>     if(err < 0){
>         printf("snd_pcm_hw_params_set_periods: %d\n", err);
>         return 1;
>     }
> 
>     err = snd_pcm_hw_params_set_period_size(pcm, hw_params, 1024, 0);
>     if(err < 0){
>         printf("snd_pcm_hw_params_set_period_size: %d\n", err);
>         return 1;
>     }
> 
> The above already set buffer size to 10240, but you set
> buffer_size_max to buffer_size_min (80)
> 
>     err = snd_pcm_hw_params_get_buffer_size_min(hw_params, &buffer_frames);
>     if(err < 0){
>         printf("snd_pcm_hw_params_get_buffer_size: %d\n", err);
>         return 1;
>     }
>     printf("min_buffer_frames: %u\n", buffer_frames);
> 
>     err = snd_pcm_hw_params_set_buffer_size_max(pcm, hw_params, &buffer_frames);
>     if(err < 0){
>         printf("snd_pcm_hw_params_get_buffer_size: %d\n", err);
>         return 1;
>     }
>     printf("set max buffer size: %u\n", buffer_frames);
> 

Yes, that's exactly my point. I would expect set_buffer_size_max() to
fail, since it's incompatible with the parameters set earlier.
Instead, it succeeds.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel