On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:27:13AM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> The SRAM size to be used is defined by params_buffer_bytes(params), not
> fixed (of course limited by the actual available SRAM size on HW), so
> the latency should be the same compared to a DRAM having the same size.
Right, some syste
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 21:55 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:22:24PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:51 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:14:09PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
>
> > > Ah, so the SRAM is directly memory mappable. Nice. B
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:22:24PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:51 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:14:09PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> > Ah, so the SRAM is directly memory mappable. Nice. But we have a
> > limited amount of it so need to allocate it to
On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:51 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:14:09PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
>
> > + if (memif->use_sram) {
> > + struct snd_dma_buffer *dma_buf = &substream->dma_buffer;
> > + int size = params_buffer_bytes(params);
> > +
> > +
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:14:09PM +0800, Koro Chen wrote:
> + if (memif->use_sram) {
> + struct snd_dma_buffer *dma_buf = &substream->dma_buffer;
> + int size = params_buffer_bytes(params);
> +
> + memif->buffer_size = size;
> + memif->phys_buf_
5 matches
Mail list logo
