Re: DMIX and capture stream

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:47:53 +0100,
Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> 
> 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 

i do, too.

> (as it leave capture and playback definition clearly separated as 
> directions are in ALSA API).

hmm, the first example is also enough clear, i feel :)

> 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"?

well, i admit "big" is a too big word.
but it means that the inline definition isn't equivalent any longer
with the external definition, since you cannot express the
playback/capture-only pcm in the inline slave pcm.  that's what i'm
concerned.


> Technically they're quite the same.

also my asym plugin, too :)  it doesn't introduce any overhead except
for parsing.


Takashi


-------------------------------------------------------
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