Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752794AbbDUC10 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:27:26 -0400 Received: from mailgw01.mediatek.com ([210.61.82.183]:56778 "EHLO mailgw01.mediatek.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751807AbbDUC1Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:27:24 -0400 X-Listener-Flag: 11101 Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 3/3] ASoC: mediatek: Add AFE platform driver From: Koro Chen To: Mark Brown CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , In-Reply-To: <20150420205511.GL14892@sirena.org.uk> References: <1428653649-38200-1-git-send-email-koro.chen@mediatek.com> <1428653649-38200-4-git-send-email-koro.chen@mediatek.com> <20150418175139.GG26185@sirena.org.uk> <1429510944.30743.36.camel@mtksdaap41> <20150420205511.GL14892@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:27:13 +0800 Message-ID: <1429583233.14794.40.camel@mtksdaap41> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MTK: N Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1504 Lines: 31 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. But we have a > > > limited amount of it so need to allocate it to a device somehow based on > > > some factor I guess? > > > Yes, actually SRAM is only used for the main playback path (which is > > memif "DL1") to achieve low power in real use case. Maybe you think it's > > better to not describe this in the device tree, but to choose SRAM > > automatically if memif "DL1" is chosen? > > Since it's directly memory mappable is there actually any cost in > latency terms from using the SRAM in low latency cases (or did I misread > what the code was doing there)? If it can only be used with one > interface and there's no downside from using it... 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. The SRAM can be used by any memif, and that's why the plan was let DT make the decision. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/