At Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:45:05 +0100,
Abramo Bagnara wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > as written in my previous mail, it was a quick hack. and there is a
> > better approach.
>
> I'd prefer the following approach:
>
> pcmp.duplex {
> type dmix
> ...
> }
>
> pcmc.duplex {
> type dsnoop
> ...
> }
>
> with the following policy:
> - if capture is specified pcmc and pcm are searched in this order
> - if playback is specified pcmp and pcm are searched in this order
this was my first idea, too.
but i'm afraid that it will lead to more conditionals (i.e. more
codes) over all plugins with a slave pcm, and make the syntax more
complicated.
> This would solve also the annoying problem of pcm that are valid only
> for one direction and should not be used (or browsed) for the other.
it's also possible by defining only playback or capture
pcm.playbackonly {
type asym
playback.pcm foo
}
then the rest stream will remain undefined.
Takashi
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
