At Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:03:32 -0400,
Matthew Ranostay wrote:
>
> Dynamically create capture mux volume controls when a output amp is detected.
>
> ---
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ranostay <mranostay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/pci/hda/patch_sigmatel.c b/pci/hda/patch_sigmatel.c
> index ff56432..621cc48 100644
> --- a/pci/hda/patch_sigmatel.c
> +++ b/pci/hda/patch_sigmatel.c
> @@ -794,7 +794,9 @@ static struct snd_kcontrol_new stac9200_mixer[] = {
> STAC_INPUT_SOURCE(1),
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME("Capture Volume", 0x0a, 0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE("Capture Switch", 0x0a, 0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME("Capture Mux Volume", 0x0c, 0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + */
Let's remove these instead of comment out. The comment-out is good if
it could be re-added, but in this case, it shouldn't happen.
> { } /* end */
> };
>
> @@ -908,14 +910,15 @@ static struct snd_kcontrol_new
> stac92hd71bxx_analog_mixer[] = {
>
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Volume", 0x0, 0x1c, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE_IDX("Capture Switch", 0x0, 0x1c, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Mux Volume", 0x0, 0x1a, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + */
>
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Volume", 0x1, 0x1d, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE_IDX("Capture Switch", 0x1, 0x1d, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> - HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Mux Volume", 0x1, 0x1b, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> -
> /* analog pc-beep replaced with digital beep support */
> /*
> + HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Mux Volume", 0x1, 0x1b, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME("PC Beep Volume", 0x17, 0x2, HDA_INPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE("PC Beep Switch", 0x17, 0x2, HDA_INPUT),
> */
> @@ -931,11 +934,15 @@ static struct snd_kcontrol_new stac92hd71bxx_mixer[] = {
>
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Volume", 0x0, 0x1c, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE_IDX("Capture Switch", 0x0, 0x1c, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Mux Volume", 0x0, 0x1a, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + */
>
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Volume", 0x1, 0x1d, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE_IDX("Capture Switch", 0x1, 0x1d, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Mux Volume", 0x1, 0x1b, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + */
> { } /* end */
> };
>
> @@ -943,7 +950,9 @@ static struct snd_kcontrol_new stac925x_mixer[] = {
> STAC_INPUT_SOURCE(1),
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME("Capture Volume", 0x09, 0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE("Capture Switch", 0x14, 0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME("Capture Mux Volume", 0x0f, 0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + */
> { } /* end */
> };
>
> @@ -957,8 +966,9 @@ static struct snd_kcontrol_new stac9205_mixer[] = {
>
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Volume", 0x1, 0x1c, 0x0, HDA_INPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE_IDX("Capture Switch", 0x1, 0x1e, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Mux Capture Volume", 0x1, 0x1A, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> -
> + */
> { } /* end */
> };
>
> @@ -971,7 +981,9 @@ static struct snd_kcontrol_new stac922x_mixer[] = {
>
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Volume", 0x1, 0x18, 0x0, HDA_INPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE_IDX("Capture Switch", 0x1, 0x18, 0x0, HDA_INPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Mux Capture Volume", 0x1, 0x13, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + */
> { } /* end */
> };
>
> @@ -990,7 +1002,9 @@ static struct snd_kcontrol_new stac927x_mixer[] = {
>
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Capture Volume", 0x2, 0x1A, 0x0, HDA_INPUT),
> HDA_CODEC_MUTE_IDX("Capture Switch", 0x2, 0x1d, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + /*
> HDA_CODEC_VOLUME_IDX("Mux Capture Volume", 0x2, 0x17, 0x0, HDA_OUTPUT),
> + */
> { } /* end */
> };
>
> @@ -2780,6 +2794,35 @@ static int stac92xx_auto_create_beep_ctls(struct
> hda_codec *codec,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* labels for mux inputs */
> +static const char *stac92xx_mux_labels[4] = {
> + "Capture Mux 1", "Capture Mux 2", "Capture Mux 3",
> + "Capture Mux 4"
> +};
These names are not good. In your code, the resultant string will be
something like "Capture Mux 1 Capture Volume". This should be
"Mux Capture Volume" to keep the compatibility (actually "Capture Mux
Volume" was wrong).
The secondary and later items should use index=1 and so.
stac92xx_add_control() should be changed as well to take the index
(or better to keep stac92xx_add_control() as is now, and make it
calling another one, because stac92xx_add_control() is called already
from many places.)
thanks,
Takashi
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
