From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: (no subject) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:59:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1612.132.168.64.149.1110976713.squirrel@132.168.64.149> <1806.132.168.64.149.1110980407.squirrel@132.168.64.149> <1908.132.168.64.149.1110981336.squirrel@132.168.64.149> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <1908.132.168.64.149.1110981336.squirrel@132.168.64.149> Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Eric Cc: alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:36 +0100 (CET), Eric wrote: > > Maybe this is stupid, I'm not driver developper, but I see : > > +/* receive a response */ > +static unsigned int azx_get_response(struct hda_codec *codec) > +{ > + azx_t *chip = codec->bus->private_data; > + int timeout = 50; > + > + while (chip->rirb.cmds) { > + if (! --timeout) { > + snd_printk(KERN_ERR "azx_get_response timeout\n"); > ... > > If the bus latency is set to more than 50, for ex. 64, which s the case I > think, the "timeout" param seems to be related to a bus timeout. This > value should be set to more than 64 to have a chance to get no bus timeout > ... > Am i Wrong or is this parameter another thing ? You see msleep(1) in the loop. So, it's at least 50ms. I bet the problem is not there. Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click