|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Re[2]: another 8MB upgrade success storyRE: Re[2]: another 8MB upgrade success story
From: Justin Heiner <jheiner_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:57:02 -0700 If it's good *solid* code, and the benefits of it outweigh the downside, then I would assume that it would be demoticratically discussed by the rockbox community and ultimately decided by Bjorn, no matter which way the votes go. :-) About developing it by a non-primary developer, I would say that it has more to do with the quality of the code than the status of the developer. -Justin ---------- Original Message ---------- To: (rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se) From: Leif Sawyer (lsawyer_at_gci.com) Subject: RE: Re[2]: another 8MB upgrade success story Date: 3/19/2003 5:16:02p > Uwe continues the thread with: > > With a 2 MB AJB, you have 1,7 MB free memory for MP3 buffering. The > > 8MB-modified Jukebox has 7,7 MB for buffering and the gain in battery > > runtime is 15-30%. > > > > So if you add dynamic memory allocation so that you can use 1,8 MB > > with a 2MB AJB instead, I think it will give you another percent > > running time or so - alsolutely not worth implementing dynamic memory > > management IMHO. > > > Well, it's all about cost tradeoff, right? > > In this case, the cost is the amount of time to develop the dynamic > memory management scheme. The benefit is scalability for better > buffering (whether on 2Mb or 8Mb) and possibly automatic support for > units with more than 2Mb of onboard RAM. > > In order to keep the cost down, we could only implement initial dynamic > memory allocation. This meaning that when rockbox boots up, it figures > out how much ram is available and bases the buffer sizes on the current > ratio. > > This benifits both sides, with minimal effort and impact. We're still > not dynamically "tuning" the memory based on the current applications, > so complexity is significantly reduced. This also has the added benefit > of being "ready" for the next HW rev of the AJR/FM/xxx with more than 2M > of ram. (Ok, we don't know if they'll do this, but we'd be ready!) > > > If this were to get developed by a non-primary developer, would it be > a possibility for mainline inclusion? > > Leif Received on 2003-03-20 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |