This is the final version of my patch for module-loopback. It is on top of the
patch I sent about an hour ago and contains a lot more changes than the previous
versions:
- Honor specified latency if possible, if not adjust to the lowest possible
value
- Smooth switching from fixed latency to dyna
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
This is the final version of my patch for module-loopback. It is on top of the
patch I sent about an hour ago and contains a lot more changes than the previous
versions:
- Honor specified latency if possible, if not adjust to the lowest possible
value
- Smoo
On 05.02.2015 16:59, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
This is the final version of my patch for module-loopback. It is on
top of the
patch I sent about an hour ago and contains a lot more changes than
the previous
versions:
- Honor specified latency if possibl
First of all, thanks for a quick and detailed answer.
06.02.2015 02:02, Georg Chini wrote:
On 05.02.2015 16:59, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
This is the final version of my patch for module-loopback. It is on
top of the
patch I sent about an hour ago and co
On 06.02.2015 08:17, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
First of all, thanks for a quick and detailed answer.
06.02.2015 02:02, Georg Chini wrote:
On 05.02.2015 16:59, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
This is the final version of my patch for module-loopback. It is
On 06.02.2015 09:42, Georg Chini wrote:
On 06.02.2015 08:17, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
First of all, thanks for a quick and detailed answer.
06.02.2015 02:02, Georg Chini wrote:
On 05.02.2015 16:59, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
This is the final versio
06.02.2015 14:56, Georg Chini wrote:
One more thing: There is a systematic error in the adjust_time I could
not work around without
introducing too much overhead. The latency snapshot varies widely in the
execution time, I
measured values between 50 us and more than 60 ms. So if the extreme
value
On 06.02.2015 11:02, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
06.02.2015 14:56, Georg Chini wrote:
One more thing: There is a systematic error in the adjust_time I could
not work around without
introducing too much overhead. The latency snapshot varies widely in the
execution time, I
measured values between
06.02.2015 14:56, Georg Chini wrote:
One more thing: There is a systematic error in the adjust_time I could
not work around without
introducing too much overhead. The latency snapshot varies widely in the
execution time, I
measured values between 50 us and more than 60 ms. So if the extreme
value
On 07.02.2015 20:50, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
06.02.2015 14:56, Georg Chini wrote:
One more thing: There is a systematic error in the adjust_time I could
not work around without
introducing too much overhead. The latency snapshot varies widely in the
execution time, I
measured values between
08.02.2015 02:14, Georg Chini wrote:
Sorry, but I do not think the smoother is the problem here. I do get
quite reliable latency results.
The problem is really (if there is a problem at all) the execution time
of the code. These are not
asynchronously called functions, they wait until they are fi
08.02.2015 13:21, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
08.02.2015 02:14, Georg Chini wrote:
Sorry, but I do not think the smoother is the problem here. I do get
quite reliable latency results.
The problem is really (if there is a problem at all) the execution time
of the code. These are not
asynchronous
in the case of timer-based scheduling (where even module-alsa-sink
does not trust the result, i.e. discards it if it is greater than the
non-transformed time interval). And, if I recollect correctly, there
were complaints about it being fooled by batch cards, and they were
cited as one of the re
I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me repeat in a different
way.
The smoother works perfectly (both for timer-based scheduling and for
the needs of your module) on non-batch cards.
But, even for batch cards, where timer-based scheduling is disabled,
the smoother is active and is a
08.02.2015 17:35, Georg Chini wrote:
I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me repeat in a different
way.
The smoother works perfectly (both for timer-based scheduling and for
the needs of your module) on non-batch cards.
But, even for batch cards, where timer-based scheduling is disable
On 08.02.2015 14:03, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
08.02.2015 17:35, Georg Chini wrote:
I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me repeat in a different
way.
The smoother works perfectly (both for timer-based scheduling and for
the needs of your module) on non-batch cards.
But, even for b
08.02.2015 18:50, Georg Chini wrote:
On 08.02.2015 14:03, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
08.02.2015 17:35, Georg Chini wrote:
I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me repeat in a different
way.
The smoother works perfectly (both for timer-based scheduling and for
the needs of your module
On 08.02.2015 16:52, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
OK, then I think there was some misunderstanding on my side. Could you
please post some log lines with two USB devices to completely clear
this up? I want logs without the stop criterion (which is properly
called a "deadband"), and with both 0
08.02.2015 22:43, Georg Chini wrote:
On 08.02.2015 16:52, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
OK, then I think there was some misunderstanding on my side. Could you
please post some log lines with two USB devices to completely clear
this up? I want logs without the stop criterion (which is properly
ca
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
This is the final version of my patch for module-loopback. It is on top of the
patch I sent about an hour ago and contains a lot more changes than the previous
versions:
- Honor specified latency if possible, if not adjust to the lowest possible
value
- Smoo
On 08.02.2015 19:33, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
08.02.2015 22:43, Georg Chini wrote:
On 08.02.2015 16:52, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
OK, then I think there was some misunderstanding on my side. Could you
please post some log lines with two USB devices to completely clear
this up? I want lo
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
+/* Minimum number of adjust times + 1 needed to adjust at 0.75% deviation
from base rate */
+min_cycles = (double)abs(latency_difference) / u->adjust_time / 0.0075 + 1;
+
+/* Rate calculation, maximum deviation from base rate will be less than
0
On 08.02.2015 19:54, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
+/* Minimum number of adjust times + 1 needed to adjust at 0.75%
deviation from base rate */
+min_cycles = (double)abs(latency_difference) / u->adjust_time /
0.0075 + 1;
+
+/* Rate calculation, m
On 08.02.2015 20:30, Georg Chini wrote:
On 08.02.2015 19:54, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
+/* Minimum number of adjust times + 1 needed to adjust at 0.75%
deviation from base rate */
+min_cycles = (double)abs(latency_difference) / u->adjust_time /
0
09.02.2015 00:35, Georg Chini пишет:
On 08.02.2015 20:30, Georg Chini wrote:
On 08.02.2015 19:54, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
+/* Minimum number of adjust times + 1 needed to adjust at 0.75%
deviation from base rate */
+min_cycles = (double)abs(l
On 08.02.2015 19:34, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote:
This is the final version of my patch for module-loopback. It is on
top of the
patch I sent about an hour ago and contains a lot more changes than
the previous
versions:
- Honor specified latency if possibl
This is mostly for Tanu's patch-status page.
I have split the patch into 11 components and sent the result to Georg
privately. I have not done a careful self-review of the resulting
components, and can't say that I 100% agree with the result. But there
are definitely some things worth cherry-p
On 22.02.2015 23:25, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
This is mostly for Tanu's patch-status page.
I have split the patch into 11 components and sent the result to Georg
privately. I have not done a careful self-review of the resulting
components, and can't say that I 100% agree with the result. B
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 18:56 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 23.02.2015 08:02, Georg Chini wrote:
> > On 22.02.2015 23:25, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> >> Anyway, the original submission (i.e. the patch that I am replying
> >> to) has a bug: it crashes PulseAudio in the Bluetooth A2DP -> HDA
On 25.02.2015 17:51, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 18:56 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
On 23.02.2015 08:02, Georg Chini wrote:
On 22.02.2015 23:25, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Anyway, the original submission (i.e. the patch that I am replying
to) has a bug: it crashes PulseAudio in
On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 18:48 +0100, Georg Chini wrote:
> On 25.02.2015 17:51, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> > If there was the kind of function that you propose, would it return
> > false in this scenario? If so, that would just make module-alsa-card.c
> > kill the sink input, because it's not going to can
31 matches
Mail list logo
