From: Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
To: Pierre C <lists@peufeu.com>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Subject: Re: USB Implicit Feedback
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 13:31:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <540C420D.6000202@zonque.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.xls10oxteorkce@apollo13>
Hi,
On 09/07/2014 09:06 AM, Pierre C wrote:
> - The Apple app notes seem to say it's the best way to do things, and I'd
> like it to also work on Macs. But I'm not married to Apple, and it seems
> Macs also support explicit feedback, so this isn't a very important point.
Explicit feedback is much more common than anything else, and I haven't
yet seen a standard compliant device with implicit feedback in the wild.
And more common means more test coverage :)
> - Implicit feedback would use one less IN endpoint, and that would be
> useful.
Yes, but it will always cause traffic in both directions, even if only
one is actually used. Unless you're in full-duplex mode, you'll waste
50% of the bandwidth.
>> The usage mask of bmAttributes of the endpoint should be
>> USB_ENDPOINT_USAGE_IMPLICIT_FB, along with some other constraints. See
>> set_sync_endpoint() in sound/usb/pcm.c
>
> I have read this source code before but I'm not sure what the second
> parameter of "get_endpoint(alts, 1)" really means, does it imply that an
> altsetting has to have 2 endpoints and it takes the second one, but in
> which order ? order of definition in descriptors, endpoint number ?...
That's the index of the endpoint in the given alt interface.
> But is it bmAttributes in the playback endpoint descriptor, or its buddy
> capture endpoint ? The USB docs are quite vague and I see several possible
> interpretations ... Does the playback AudioStreaming descriptor need to
> have 1 endpoint, or 2 ?... I've tried various combinations with the latest
> stable linux kernel, none worked.
It's been a while since I looked into this, but when I implemented the
code in the first place, I had no standard compliant device to test
with, so I had to force the driver into implicit mode with a quirk. I'd
recommend adding printk() to the driver and trace the calls and see how
they parse the descriptors.
But as I said - if explicit feedback mode already works for you, I'd
stick with it.
Best regards,
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-07 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-06 6:53 USB Implicit Feedback Pierre C
2014-09-06 11:56 ` Daniel Mack
2014-09-07 7:06 ` Pierre C
2014-09-07 11:31 ` Daniel Mack [this message]
2014-09-07 13:30 ` Pierre C
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=540C420D.6000202@zonque.org \
--to=daniel@zonque.org \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=lists@peufeu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox