At Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:15:40 +0100,
Abramo Bagnara wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:39:14 +0100,
> > Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>I don't see your point, can you show me an example of what you mean?
> >>
> >>AFAICS the only code that need to be changed is the PCM definition lookup.
> >
> >
> > there are two parts to be modified, snd_pcm_open_noupdate() and
> > snd_pcm_slave_conf(). they are the parts which look up "pcm"
> > directive in the configuration.
> > the former is easy. but the latter function doesn't have stream
> > argument, so it cannot check whether "pcmp" or "pcmc" to check. and,
> > changing this function will need rewriting all callers...
>
> I definitely don't see why you think snd_pcm_slave_conf need to be
> changed. It does not need to know about pcmp/pcmc variants.
>
> I'm missing something?
if i understand the code correctly, for defining a pcmp or pcmc as a
slave pcm, such as,
pcm.foo {
type plug
slave {
pcmp bar_playback
pcmc bar_capture
}
}
snd_pcm_slave_conf() needs to know which one to be used, so that the
config subtree (of either pcmp, pcmc or pcm) is passed to
snd_pcm_open_slave().
otherwise, you have to define slave pcms always separetly, such as,
pcm.foo {
type plug
slave {
pcm bar
}
}
pcmp.bar bar_playback
pcmc.bar bar_capture
i think it's a big restriction.
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
