Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > Indeed, the mixer <-> PCM mapping can be useful. For such > > information, the fixed size struct isn't suitable as multiple mixer > > elements correspond to a single PCM channel. > > I think that we have already such interface, but maybe not well described > and used. I would propose to use SNDRV_CTL_ELEM_IFACE_PCM for PCM mixer > related controls and device & subdevice from control_id structure. In this > way, we can easy group and assign all control elements to PCM substream. At the moment, this is only used for sound cards that have multiple substreams. > We may have only one problem - to identify which elements are mixer > related and which are not. Maybe, we can use one bit from access flags to > determine, if it's a mixer control element if interface != MIXER. I'm not sure if this information (mixer or not) is that useful - an application is likely to access a mixer control with a 'known' meaning, like volume or mute, and in this case it has to search the controls by their name anyway. Regards, Clemens _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
