At Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:54:07 +0200 (CEST), Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > It's fine because snd_ctl_eme_read() and snd_ctl_elem_write() are > > really corresponding 1:1. The write is just write, and the read is > > just read. > > It might be for TLV, too. But I agree, we have basically two "write" > requests: > > 1) do a TLV command processing > 2) do a TLV value write operation > > In such case, I think that we need third ioctl TLV_COMMAND? I can rename > write_flag to op_flag or so and we are fine. Also creating > ACCESS_TLV_COMMAND might make sense. It's ok for you? Yeah, the separate ioctls sound reasonable. Is TLV_WRITE applicable to normal control elements? If it's only for user-space elements, we should rename it such as TLV_WRITE_USER or so. > The only bad thing is that the TLV write replaces the whole TLV tree for > the user elements. Perhaps, a flag can be added to 'struct snd_ctl_tlv' > which will mean 'partial write', so we can distinguish the full / partial > operations and implement only full write at the time. I'm afraid that it would bring unnecessary complexity. The TLV_READ is anyway the read of the whole TLV tree. So, TLV_WRITE should be same. Anyway, still I think we'd better implement and test example codes in alsa-lib before committing to alsa-kernel codes... Takashi Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
