On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 04:18:16PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > Of course, it's a question how fine-grained each file should be. But > in general, modifying the default configuration just for adding a new, > fairly independent item is a bad idea. In my scenario: you want to > add the support for a new hardware -- fine, just add the file without > changing anything else. This would make the maintenance a lot easier Yeah, I can see embedded people liking this too - a relatively small proportion of machines end up submitting their code to mainline for various reasons and carrying patches is no fun. > (imagine you maintain a distro package). Or use one, for that matter - if you've got local changes then you need to resolve the conflicts between them and the distro versions on every upgrade. > > I'm not sure. The restore action will always overwrite all 'init' values > > (at least when control identifier list is not changed in the driver). > > Probably, I would prefer a buildin procedure like 'if restore fails then > > do init'. What about 'alsactl boot' action name? > The init makes sense in the case when the driver is updated and some > new controls. Then the newly added controls are set up properly, then > the other values are overwritten via restore. I've not looked at the new code yet but it would be *really* nice to have a format where only the control names are used. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
