Op 21-12-12 18:44, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com schreef:
> Hi,
>
> Maarten Lankhorst answered:
>>> [...] I wonder why you
>>> insist on using GetStreamLatency as the basis of your timeout
>>> computations instead of GetDevicePeriod.
>> Because I'm using it later on in the rework to tell how m
Op 21-12-12 11:59, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com schreef:
> Maarten,
>
>> +hres = IAudioClient_GetStreamLatency(device->client, &period);
>> +device->sleeptime = period_ms * 5 / 2;
>> +ret = WaitForSingleObject(dev->sleepev, dev->sleeptime);
> Although it's a minor point,
Hi,
Maarten Lankhorst answered:
>> [...] I wonder why you
>> insist on using GetStreamLatency as the basis of your timeout
>> computations instead of GetDevicePeriod.
>Because I'm using it later on in the rework to tell how much to queue.
Ah. But why not use the correct tool for the correct job
Maarten,
> +hres = IAudioClient_GetStreamLatency(device->client, &period);
> +device->sleeptime = period_ms * 5 / 2;
> + ret = WaitForSingleObject(dev->sleepev, dev->sleeptime);
Although it's a minor point, as we're solely discussing the case of the
timeout when mmdevapi d
Looks good to me, no problems with any of the drivers. I think it'd be
good to get it in on Monday, as release day is tomorrow, but that's
not my call.
Andrew
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:30:04AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Use a thread instead of a timer for greater precision.
>
> Changes s
