From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Sakamoto Subject: Re: About 'SNDRV_PCM_CLASS_MULTI' for devices with multi-channels Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 23:25:31 +0900 Message-ID: <5306105B.9020905@sakamocchi.jp> References: <5304C64D.3090400@sakamocchi.jp> <530508BB.6060802@canonical.com> <53056860.7090500@sakamocchi.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp302.phy.lolipop.jp (smtp302.phy.lolipop.jp [210.157.22.85]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D1C261A63 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:25:40 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: 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: Takashi Iwai Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, David Henningsson List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org > Right. And the likely reason is that such a differentiation doesn't > help much. I thought usage of this macro can tell applications that the PCM channels are not for surround sound. But for this purpose, card configuration is better. Applications can get to know by seeking 'surround' PCM devices such like 'surround51'. > You can still use your device for driving 5.1 surround :) It's not my intention. I'm considering about the way to prevent applications from using the devices for surround sound. I don't prepare for card configuration. So devices which my drivers support have no 'surround' PCM devices. > So, I rather would like to keep them RIP. Maybe worth to remove it > now. Yes. In the same reason, 'SND_PCM_SUBCLASS_MULTI_MIX' should be removed. As a result, 'SND_PCM_SUBCLASS_XXX', 'struct snd_pcm_info.dev_subclass' are also needless... Thanks Takashi Sakamoto o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp