Again, this is changing the original meaning of the flag from "playback
allowed" to "playback required".
This patch (or the orignal) does not explain why this change of meaning
is necessary ? The point I was making here [0] still stands.
If your evil plan is to get rid of 2 of the 4 flags, why go through the
trouble of the changing the meaning and effect of one them ?
My intent was to have a non-ambiguous definition.
I don't know 'playback allowed' means. What is the point of using this
flag if it may or may not accurately describe what is actually
implemented? And how can we converge the use of flags since in the
contrary 'playback_only' is actually a clear indication of what the link
does. We've got to align on the semantics, and I really don't see the
point of watering-down definitions. When things are optional or poorly
defined, the confusion continues.
WFIW, my 'evil' plan was to rename 'dpcm_playback' as 'can_playback'
(same for capture) and replace 'playback_only' by 'can_playback = 1;
can_capture = 0'. So this first step was really to align them on the
expected behavior and minimal requirements.
