From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Juho_H=E4m=E4l=E4inen?= Subject: UCM {Supported,Conflicting}Device confusion Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:55:38 +0300 Message-ID: <51A5DEAA.4020007@tieto.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ebb05.tieto.com (ebb05.tieto.com [131.207.168.36]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5451F2619F9 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:55:40 +0200 (CEST) List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hello, Firstly as a sidenote, Supported/Conflicting is checked only one-way, if say devices A and B are enabled and say B has ConflictingDevice "C", and device C doesn't list anything, enabling of C is possible (and after that disabling C is not possible before B is disabled first). Now, looking at the way SupportedDevice and ConflictingDevice are implemented in ucm and I came to following conclusion: If no SupportedDevice or ConflictingDevice: All devices and combinations are compatible, so implicit "SupportedDevice ALL". If SupportedDevice is listed: Device can be enabled as long as at least one enabled device is in SupportedDevice list. If ConflictingDevice is listed: Device can be enabled if none of active devices are in ConflictingDevice list (noting aforementioned limit in checking this) This is at least how I figured all combinations of multiple devices can be defined with only zero or one either SupportedDevice or ConflictingDevice entry per device. Did I understand this right? -- juho