From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Abramo Bagnara Subject: Re: Single process freeze when opening capture device Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:13:11 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3ED60767.6060502@libero.it> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Jaroslav Kysela Cc: Alsa dev List List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Jaroslav Kysela ha scritto: > On Thu, 29 May 2003, Abramo Bagnara wrote: > > >>What about a "dir" field in common section of pcm configuration? >> >> dir STR # PCM allowed directions "playback", "capture", "both" (default) > > > I'd like to solve the problem with same names, but different > configurations for streams. > > I have an idea like: > > pcm.name { > ... global configuration ... > playback { > ... playback configuration ... > } > capture { > ... capture configuration ... > } > } I'm far from convinced that to have same name for different things is a good idea, and in this case I'd propose to have: pcmc.name { } pcmp.name { } then specifying different namespaces for different things. This also permits to leave current pcm.name { } unmodified (although with lower priority wrt pcmc and pcmp). > > Also, we have copy of configuration for each open which is used for > run-time evaluation. I think that we may pass from the open code some more > information and use some {} region as data caching: > > private { # reserved for internal data only, warn and ignore if user defines it > direction playback > ctl_cache_handle 0x%p # cache ctl handle for runtime evaluation > ... etc, etc ... > } > > We may add condition (if - else) evaluation functions to runtime parsing > which can test the contents of private variables. Now, we have same driver > with different chip revisions which add/remove some features (mainly > controls) and we need to test them to behave correctly. > > Also, the first proposal requires to change all plugins, the later will > rewrite the configuration at run-time, so no changes are required for > plugins. I've reread many times this last part but I'm unable to understand what's your idea. Can you rephrase? -- Abramo Bagnara mailto:abramo.bagnara@libero.it Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5