On 06/09/2016 11:49 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:14:01 +0200, > Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> No this is currently not really supported. There were some ideas for this a >> long long time ago, but it never got implemented. And today basically >> everybody takes care of hiding the controls from userspace. >> >> That does not mean it does not make sense to have such a feature, but it >> needs somebody with a motivation to implement it. > > The devils live in details. Actually a primary question is in which > level we should cover it. For example, can we disable DAPM pins from > the machine driver? This will reduce not only kctls but DAPM paths. > Or should we mark kctls just as invisible? Or, would it be suitable > rather to hide such a thing in user-space? For DAPM we already do this. Even automatically the DAPM core is capable of figuring out which paths are unused and will never be powered-up. The path will still exist in the graph but it will be ignored for all operations and not significantly affect performance. And I think the idea back then was to track which controls are on which paths and if it is on a non-connected path disable the control. What's a bit tricky is if you have a mixer or mux and only some of the output/input paths are not connected. Also for most controls we do not have the information where they are placed within the graph. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
