From: Jiada Wang <jiada_w...@mentor.com>
period_pos can always be calculated by byte_pos and
byte_per_period, there is no reason to maintain this
variable in rsnd_dai_stream.
Further more, if the passed 'byte' amount to
rsnd_ssi_pointer_update() is more than byte_per_period.
the calculation of next_period_byte isn't correct.
This patch removes period_pos from rsnd_ssi and calculates
next_period_byte with consideration of actual byte_pos value.
Signed-off-by: Jiada Wang <jiada_w...@mentor.com>
---
sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c b/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c
index cbf3bf3..f212024 100644
--- a/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c
+++ b/sound/soc/sh/rcar/ssi.c
@@ -80,7 +80,6 @@ struct rsnd_ssi {
unsigned int usrcnt;
int byte_pos;
- int period_pos;
int byte_per_period;
int next_period_byte;
};
@@ -421,7 +420,6 @@ static void rsnd_ssi_pointer_init(struct rsnd_mod *mod,
struct snd_pcm_runtime *runtime = rsnd_io_to_runtime(io);
ssi->byte_pos = 0;
- ssi->period_pos = 0;
ssi->byte_per_period = runtime->period_size *
runtime->channels *
samples_to_bytes(runtime, 1);
@@ -453,13 +451,12 @@ static bool rsnd_ssi_pointer_update(struct rsnd_mod *mod,
if (byte_pos >= ssi->next_period_byte) {
struct snd_pcm_runtime *runtime = rsnd_io_to_runtime(io);
+ int period_pos = byte_pos / ssi->byte_per_period;
- ssi->period_pos++;
- ssi->next_period_byte += ssi->byte_per_period;
+ ssi->next_period_byte = (period_pos + 1) * ssi->byte_per_period;
- if (ssi->period_pos >= runtime->periods) {
+ if (period_pos >= runtime->periods) {
byte_pos = 0;
- ssi->period_pos = 0;
ssi->next_period_byte = ssi->byte_per_period;
}
--
1.7.9.5
