From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: double speed (ADAT), and hw params ordering Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:40:54 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <200207181858.g6IIw7D01719@op.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from Cantor.suse.de (ns.suse.de [213.95.15.193]) by alsa.alsa-project.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id MAA24125 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:40:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200207181858.g6IIw7D01719@op.net> Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Paul Davis Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:58:07 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > i've been wondering what to do about setting sample rates in the > hammerfall and h-dsp drivers. fernando and gary from CCRMA have made > the excellent suggestion that rather than have the driver pretend that > all rates are available all the time, as it currently does, that we > have a control switch to go between regular rates and the "double > speed" or "bitsplit" rates (64kHz-96kHz) which reduce the channel > count. i think this is an excellent idea. you would not be able to > use the switch while the device was open. when you opened it, you > would find (for example) a device with 14 channels (12 ADAT plus 2 > SPDIF) at 64-96kHz or 26 channels (24 ADAT+2 SPDIF) at 32-48kHz. i vote for this idea. > if anyone objects to this model, please let me know. right now, its > more or less impossible to get access to the higher rates. > > on a related note, although the above suggestion will fix this > particular problem, it seems that it might be wise to consider adding > a parameter order information field to the driver API, so that drivers > can say "you have to set param P first, then param N, then param > O". the default would obviously be "don't care", but for devices that > lose certain capabilities when certain parameters are set, it would > make things very much easier. agreed that it's good to have such one. but how to implement this? from the design of hw_constraint, i don't think it's so easy... Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf