On 3/1/2018 04:07, Kirill Marinushkin wrote:
@Pierre-Louis
That looks acceptable to me, Xiuli can you test with with the matching change
in the SOF topology macros (we can keep the 'slave' in M4 files but expand to
'codec_slave' in the .conf to avoid making this exception visible).
I don't see any comments from Pan Xiuli in the whole mailing thread.
Do we still wait for his feedback?
Sorry about the late reply, I have some wrong setting with my mail
client and found all the mails related in the junk folder.
Thanks Pierre to remind me. I will do the test with the SOF topology and
sent patch later.
The patches look good to me, we need to keep the old things work. The
modify is simple but efficient. I will also send a reminder letter about
these alsa-lib changes to our sof developer.
@Mark
Should we warn on use of "master" since it's being deprecated here (and
might be confusing for users)?
Maybe. OTOH, it looks fully backward-compatible, so far, so it's not that
confusing yet.
Not a compatibility issue, yeah - more just that we've clearly already got people
confused so pushing people to the more explicit name might avoid further
issues down the line.
Agree with that. I will add a warning and send it as a patch v2.
@Takashi
Yep, please at the next time. (And, don't stick with an old thread, but refresh a
new thread.)
Yes, I will do so. I want to do this clean, so let me clarify before I start:
1. I will start a new thread, with linux [patch v2]
2. I will send the [patch, alsa-lib v2] in-reply to that linux [patch v2]
3. I will add all currently involved people as CC
Does it look correct?
I will look forward to test with new patches.
Thanks
Xiuli
Best Regards,
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
