On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:08:05PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:15:31 +0200,
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 05:06:36PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> I still can't agree with the basic design using the dynamic kctl
> addition / deletion in kcontrol's put action.
>
you are not being constructive. please provide specific, actionable
responses to _all_ challenges/questions.
The fundamental idea to add / delete the kctls from the put callback
is unacceptable; as repeated many times, this is known to break
existing applications. As long as you are sticking with this idea, it
can go [no] further. Please avoid it and use the (more or less) static
configuration instead.
to put the implications of this in clear words:
you want me to spend additional time
on a driver barely anyone still cares about
to actively degrade the (my!) user experience
to avoid hypothetical / likely obsolete crashes
that would happen upon a rare user-controlled event
in unspecified buggy (mixer? (!)) applications,
while a known-good fallback exists (alsamixer).
i fail to see how that is even _remotely_ a reasonable request, and
therefore have no intention whatsoever to follow it.
regards
