Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
>
>
> In this case, I propose to change snd_pcm_avail() to snd_pcm_hwsync()
> function with description: "synchronize r/w pointers with hardware".
> Really, after some thinking, the return value from snd_pcm_avail() cannot
> be used for nothing serious. I simply don't like that delay() functions
> do more arithmetic than necessary. Overdesign has been criticized in this
> list, too.
Let examine kernel level: snd_pcm_{plaback,capture}_delay do a
snd_pcm_update_hw_ptr and a snd_pcm_{playback_hw,capture}_avail (that's
only a wrap safe difference).
Are you sure you want to add another ioctl and another API function in
all the PCM classes just to avoid a subtraction?
--
Abramo Bagnara mailto:abramo.bagnara@;libero.it
Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
