On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 12:19:49 +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > 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). Simply put, YES. It's breaking applications pretty easily. This already happened in the past, so it's no hypothesis. If you've ever programmed applications that deal with ALSA mixer/control stuff by yourself, you'll notice that it's really tough to deal with the dynamic deletion/addition. alsamixer can accept it in the limited manner, but it's no fallback for everything, of course. Takashi
