>From: Pavel Hofman <pavel.hofman@xxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 3:55 AM >>>> + p_it_name playback input terminal name >>>> + p_ot_name playback output terminal name >>>> + p_fu_name playback function unit name >>>> + p_alt0_name playback alt mode 0 name >>>> + p_alt1_name playback alt mode 1 name >>> >>> Nacked-by: Pavel Hofman <pavel.hofman@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I am not sure adding a numbered parameter for every additional alt mode >>> is a way to go for the future. I am not that much concerned about UAC1, >>> but IMO (at least) in UAC2 the configuration method should be flexible >>> for more alt setttings. I can see use cases with many more altsettings. >>> >>> My proposal for adding more alt settings >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/35be4668-58d3-894a-72cf-de1afaacae45@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> suggested using lists to existing parameters where each item would >>> correspond to the alt setting of the same index (+1). That would allow >>> using more altsettings easily, without having to add parameters to the >>> source code and adding configfs params. I received no feedback. I do not >>> push the param list proposal, but I am convinced an acceptable solution >>> should be discussed thoroughly by the UAC2 gadget stakeholders. >>> >>> I am afraid that once p_alt1_name/c_alt1_name params are accepted, there >>> will be no way back because subsequent removal of configfs params could >>> be viewed as a regression for users. >> >> I have been thinking about this as well. The alt names are slightly different than the rest of the settings >> since they also include alt mode 0. I was thinking p/c_alt1_name could be expanded to the array so >> that the entries line up with the other settings and don't have an extra entry for alt 0. Perhaps a different >> name would make more sense. >> >> Along those lines, I didn't see any gadget drivers using an array of strings for anything, which is also why >> I didn't try to do anything here that merged alt0/1 names into an array. If we were to do an array of strings >> I'm not sure what the best separator would be. Maybe ";"? The rates array uses ",". >> >> This patch only exposes the existing strings to make them configurable, but I don't want to do anything >> that would preclude a nice interface for extra alt modes. >> > >Thanks a lot for your response. Please can you take a look at >https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/72e9b581-4a91-2319-cb9f-0bcb370f34a1@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/ ? > >If the params in the upper level were to stand as defaults for the >altsettings (and for the existing altsetting 1 if no specific altset >subdir configs were given), maybe the naming xxx_alt1_xxx could become a >bit confusing. E.g. p_altx_name or p_alt_non0_name? I am in favor of the subdirs for alt mode settings, with the main config options acting as the default/single configuration as it is today. I can change these patches from c/p_alt1_name to c/p_altx_name if nobody objects to that, or I could remove the alt name from this patch set if anyone thinks this needs more discussion. I don't actually need to set the alt name for my use case, but included it for completeness. -- Chris Wulff
