At Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:41:32 +0200, Clemens Ladisch wrote: > > Takashi Iwai wrote: > > noreply-git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > commit fc9e4a3811567f8d1d4c263a89e27b52c90d6098 > > > Author: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > AuthorDate: Tue Oct 6 08:21:04 2009 +0200 > > > > > > sound: via82xx: move DXS volume controls to PCM interface > > > > > > The "VIA DXS" controls are actually volume controls that apply to the > > > four PCM substreams, so we better indicate this connection by moving the > > > controls to the PCM interface. > > > > Well, this control was once removed, and then revived due to complains > > by users > > one user More. I've seen in other MLs and got personal mails, too. Just handful, though :) > > who have used it in mixer. Moving this to PCM iface does > > almost the same thing, disabling an easy way to access it. > > Any application that looks for per-stream volume controls would find > them only this way. > > Since the assignment of applications to PCM substreams is more or less > random, depending on how many other substreams are open, it does not > make much sense to allow the user to access them by their number. This is correct. But you can't expect how users use it. Changing any existing behavior is regarded always as a regression, no matter whether it's the correct move or not. It's so especially with the old stuff. I don't care about this so much and will likely cherry-pick your commit. Certainly it's a good fix for long term. But, we should keep it in mind that even this can be seen as a regression for some people, and we must be really carefully to judge before changing such a really old stuff. thanks, Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
