On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 06:59, Mark Brown wrote:> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 06:47:17AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:>> i think Cliff verified that the other part of the change was no longer>> needed in his testing, so reverting the whole patch is fine. we've>> done that in the Blackfin tree.>> So, the first part of the patch was applying constraints. You definitely> want to do that with your current implementation - the hw_params()> function will completely ignore the parameters set for the second> substream so unless you use constraints the second application will get> a configuration it didn't ask for which isn't going to work so well. the first part conditionalized the constraints. ignoring whitespacechanges, this is the diff:+if (master_runtime->rate != 0) snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime, ......+if (master_runtime->sample_bits != 0) snd_pcm_hw_constraint_minmax(substream->runtime, ...... or maybe that is what you're saying and i dont know alsa-mike_______________________________________________Alsa-devel mailing listAlsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
