On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:59:09 +0200 (CEST), > Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > At Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:45:54 +0200 (CEST), > > > Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > here is my proposal to provide (a long waited feature) a device > > > > name list for applications (especially for GUI). The work is not finished, > > > > but the patch bellow gives already useful hints like (for PCM devices): > > > > > > > > hw:CARD=Intel,DEV=0 > > > > hw:CARD=Intel,DEV=1 > > > > hw:CARD=Intel,DEV=2 > > > > hw:CARD=Intel,DEV=6 > > > > plughw:CARD=Intel,DEV=0 > > > > plughw:CARD=Intel,DEV=1 > > > > plughw:CARD=Intel,DEV=2 > > > > plughw:CARD=Intel,DEV=6 > > > > plug > > > > shm > > > > tee > > > > file > > > > null > > > > > > Hm... I don't think it's a good idea to pass the device like > > > "hw:xxx" to applications. The hw access doesn't work for most of > > > apps except for a special one like JACK. Even plughw isn't enough, > > > e.g. for SPDIF access. > > > > > > In other words, it's rather harmful to pass all available configs. > > > The apps need only limited configs that they can use safely, > > > preferably with a certain description text for each. > > > > > > I think we'd need some flags to indicate "this config is OK for > > > enumeration". For example, add 'export' option in each exported > > > config definition together with 'description "xxxx"' > > > (or 'export "xxxx"' indicates that it's exported with a description > > > xxxx). For the hardware devices, we can retrieve the information from > > > the driver. For a virtual device, the description should be given > > > manually. > > > > Yes, the policies should be discussed. I already proposed to have > > a "disable hint" tag in the configuration files, so we can avoid > > to put specific definitions to the hint list. > > > > But the major idea is to provide list of all device definitions including > > user specific ones by default. > > Well, my opinion is that providing "all" devices is wrong. Instead, > only approved devices should be listed. > > For example, what would be a merit to list "hw:x", "plughw:x" and > "default:x" (this can be renamed) at the same time? When multiple > items appear on a list, user shall choose wrong ones in a pretty high > probability according to Murphy's law. I am not against to disable the hw: and plughw: listing, but my opinion is if user adds an extra configuration to ~/.asoundrc, it might be expected to use (and see) this configuration. Jaroslav ----- Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxx> Linux Kernel Sound Maintainer ALSA Project, SUSE Labs ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
