On 18-12-23, 14:29, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 01:58:47PM +0100, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > why not have a single API that does both? First check if it is supported > > > and then allocate buffers and do the transfer.. What are the advantages > > > of using this two step process > > > > Symmetry is the only thing that comes to my mind. Open - close and send > > - wait are natural matches, aren't they? > > > > We do need a wait(), so bundling open() and send() would be odd. > > > > I agree send->wait->close would be odd, But you just bundle close > into wait. So the API becomes just send->wait, which seems pretty > logical. You would drop close as well, only send and wait... > > > But you have a point that the open() is not generic in that it also > > prepares the DMA buffers for transmission. Maybe it's more natural to > > follow the traditional open(), hw_params(), hw_free, close() from ALSA. > > I think this just makes it worse, you are now adding even more > calls. The problem I see here is that, open and close (at least to > me) strongly implies that you can do multiple operations between > them and unless I have misunderstood something here you can't. > > Thanks, > Charles -- ~Vinod
