From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Woithe Subject: Re: [FFADO-devel] [PATCH 18/39] firewire-lib: Add a fallback at RCODE_CANCELLED Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:05:35 +1030 Message-ID: <20140304013535.GP15773@marvin.atrad.com.au> References: <1393558072-25926-1-git-send-email-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp> <1393558072-25926-19-git-send-email-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp> <20140228212535.7606e0d8@stein> <5311517B.5060905@sakamocchi.jp> <20140301111013.483fd7df@stein> <5311D0FC.7020302@sakamocchi.jp> <20140301152050.5de701a3@stein> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from server.atrad.com.au (server.atrad.com.au [150.101.241.2]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226A12656CB for ; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:35:41 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140301152050.5de701a3@stein> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Stefan Richter Cc: tiwai@suse.de, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, jwoithe@just42.net, ffado-devel@lists.sf.net, Takashi Sakamoto List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 03:20:50PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: > On Mar 01 Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > >> A related question: Since FFADO applies 200 ms or more as FCP > >> transaction timeout, shouldn't firewire-lib's fcp.c increase > >> FCP_TIMEOUT_MS from 125 to 200 or more as well? > > > > For this developing, I've spent much time with my test devices. > > But I've never experienced disadvantages under FCP_TIMEOUT_MS=125msec. > > So feel no importance. > > > > If you feel this importance, please post your patch with proper reasons. > > This is mostly a question to the ffado-devel subscribers. 125 ms is of > course enough for devices which comply with the specification in this > regard. The question is whether FFADO developers know of devices (or > suspect devices) which exceed the standard 100 ms and need more like 200 > ms. I've personally had nothing to do with devices utilising FCP transactions so unfortunately I don't really know. My feeling is that the authors of the respective FFADO drivers would not have applied an FCP timeout of 200 ms if there was no demonstrated need for it. Therefore in the absence of other evidence I would be assuming that there are devices which require the higher timeout allowed for in FFADO's streaming code. However, I don't know which specific devices these might be. Regards jonathan