At Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:57:24 -0000 (WET), Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > > > > 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 ;) OK, then let's go to this way at first. We can add any possible better workarounds if found later. Takashi ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
