> - why do you assume that the old interface was not considered > sufficient? if volume were sufficient, there was no reason to add audioctl.
> - if you read usb(4) the first sentence on usb audio notes the > interface is backwards compatable. it notes that the names are backwards compatable, but audio only accepts writes (or so it appears). in terms of the volume file, yes. > is your interface backwards compatible with the other two? my interface does not conflict with either of the other two (the filenames do not overlap), and mapping aud[io]ctl to volume is trivial, unless multiple channels exist, which volume cannot express. that said, i havn't written the backwards compatibility yet. tristan -- All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
