From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tanu Kaskinen Subject: Re: Negative volume steps? Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 15:45:32 +0300 Message-ID: <1306413932.4306.83.camel@jarl> References: <1306408004.4306.53.camel@jarl> <4DDE46C3.5000006@ladisch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-gw1.cc.tut.fi (mail-gw1.cc.tut.fi [130.230.160.15]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BA11038AD for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 14:45:37 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <4DDE46C3.5000006@ladisch.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Clemens Ladisch Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:25 +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote: > Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > If a driver claims that the lowest volume step (integer step, not dB) of > > a volume element is -126 and the highest step is 0, is the driver > > broken? > > No. > > > I'm asking, because apparently there are such drivers, but Pulseaudio > > currently assumes that the volume steps are never negative. > > The maximum is higher than the minimum, so how would a step be negative? By "step" I mean the step index, ie. the volume value, not the difference between two volumes. > What exactly is the problem with PulseAudio? Too many assumptions. Thanks for your answer, Pulseaudio needs fixing. -- Tanu