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...