Re: DMIX and capture stream

[Abramo Bagnara <abramo.bagnara@tin.it>]

Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

As a matter of personal preference I very much prefer this latter form 
(as it leave capture and playback definition clearly separated as 
directions are in ALSA API).

Under an "objective" point of view: would you really derive from the 
comparison of the two equivalent alternative syntaxes the feeling of "a 
big restriction"?

Technically they're quite the same.

-- 
Abramo Bagnara                       mailto:abramo.bagnara@tin.it

Opera Unica                          Phone: +39.0546.656023
Via Emilia Interna, 140
48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html