Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 10:43:45 -0700 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: brianc@pobox.com (Brian Campbell), freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dma handling in the sound driver Message-ID: <199707201743.KAA04918@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:11:51 %2B0200." <199707200711.JAA19743@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Guys, 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. Have fun, Amancio >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?199707201743.KAA04918>