20 Jun
2006
20 Jun
'06
4:37 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 20:27 +0200, Florian Paul Schmidt wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:29:18 -0400
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
no, that doesn't work.
the lack of any "retval != requested_val" test was changed a year or two
back, on purpose. if we want to test this, the test has to be flexible:
some h/w will report as real rate of 44099 rather than 44100.
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:24 -0700, Mark Knecht
wrote:
Hmm, is this it:
Index: drivers/alsa/alsa_driver.c
===================================================================
--- drivers/alsa/alsa_driver.c (revision 976)
+++ drivers/alsa/alsa_driver.c (working copy)
@@ -445,13 +445,13 @@
frame_rate = driver->frame_rate ;
err = snd_pcm_hw_params_set_rate_near (handle, hw_params,
&frame_rate, NULL) ;
- driver->frame_rate = frame_rate ;
- if (err < 0) {
+ if (err < 0 || (driver->frame_rate != frame_rate)) { Many built-in/inexpensive sound cards are stuck
at 48K. Possibly this
one is also?
It's still a bug for JACK not to report any error.
Does aplay report any errors with a 44100Hz file?