Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:07:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Sujal Patel <smpatel@prognet.com> To: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> Cc: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>, Brian Campbell <brianc@pobox.com>, freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dma handling in the sound driver Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970720110614.12751B-100000@sujal.prognet.com> In-Reply-To: <199707201743.KAA04918@rah.star-gate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I understand Luigi's position given that I had to dig into the > code and understand it. Simplication of the dma code is a very > important step towards having having a stable sound driver and > for future support by others. I Agree... I've been through that code too, and if someone wants to clean it up- God Bless them!! :-) Sujal > > >From The Desk Of Luigi Rizzo : > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 1997 at 04:37:50PM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > I have planned to rewrite the dma buffer handling routines for > > > > the sound driver as follows. > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > Is the current mechanism insufficient? I thought changes were only > > > requried for full-duplex operation. > > > > > > There is a mechanism for setting the size and number of DMA buffers, > > > is there not? Will this be removed, or the settings simply ignored? > > > > the main problem I have is that I find the dma code quite complex to > > follow and understand (as all code which has been evolving for a long > > time and adapting to new boards etc.). The scheme I have described is, > > in my opinion, simpler and more effective with respect to latency. > > > > Maybe it's just my problem but since I am doing the work I'll do it in > > the way I find more effective. > > > > Plus I'll document it ! > > > > Cheers > > Luigi > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970720110614.12751B-100000>