On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 08:28:34AM -0800, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Nov 20, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Thomas Pfaff <tpf...@tp76.info> wrote: > > >On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:45:31 +0100 > >Peter Hessler <phess...@theapt.org> wrote: > > > >>mixerctl inputs.master=[0,255] > >>mixerctl outputs.master=[0,255] > > > >Still, is a simpler sysctl interface something people want? mixerctl > >can be reserved for people wanting to screw around with the gazillion > >of options available.
I have been considering making 'outputs.master' and 'record.volume' standard on all devices. the way it's done in azalia(4) could be done for any driver. uaudio(4) would be the only difficult one, the rest would be easy. but that would mean things are a lot more consistent (same "basic" controls on all audio devices), and would even simplify some code in audio(4). I just haven't decided what would be the best way to do that yet. probably some of the code could be reused, but where to put that code is the question. i.e. a driver just needs to make lists of device indexes, but the mixer code has to be part of the hardware driver, not audio(4) ... > Mixerctl and sysctl already have the same interface. And saying > mixerctl has too many options is silly considering how many options > sysctl has. > > If you don't like mixerctl, there's at least a half dozen mixers in > ports. those don't help at all. cmixer is the only one with a chance of ever being really helpful, imo. it's the only one that doesn't use libossaudio (where the real mixer names are matched to OSS names, ick). -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
