> At Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:30:17 -0000 (WET), > Rui Nuno Capela wrote: >> >> Hmmm... I'm coming up with some workaround... yes, I guess the easiest >> solution is about adding a new command line option to us428control, >> stating which model we're into, either us428 or us224; us428 would be >> the >> default. >> >> This way, for it to work out-of-the-box, and for the US224 at least, one >> should just change the respective udev rule, where I think the switch is >> made based on the actual product-id on power-up. >> >> What you think? > > This is another way I thought of, too. How compatible between these > two models? If running with a wrong option doesn't bring fatal errors > like segfault, it'd be surely a good workaround. Of course, some > consistency check in us428control would be nice to have. > AFAICS running the wrong option would only lead to wrong functionality, specially regarding fader-channel bank layer switching to DAW track logical mapping. It would be a terrible mess between the logical mapping between the US-224/428 control surface channels assignment and the actual tracks on the DAW (e.g. Ardour), and LEDs and what not won't be consistent of course, but for all else, no, it should not segfault ;) Cheers. -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rncbc@xxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
