>From: Pavel Hofman <pavel.hofman@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> + 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> ... >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've been prototyping this a bit to see how it will work. My current configfs structure looks something like: (all existing properties) c_it_name c_it_ch_name c_fu_name c_ot_name p_it_name p_it_ch_name p_fu_name p_ot_name num_alt_modes (settable to 2..5 in my prototype) alt.0 c_alt_name p_alt_name alt.1 (for alt.1, alt.2, etc.) c_alt_name p_alt_name c_ssize p_ssize (Additional properties here for other things that are settable for each alt mode, but the only one I've implemented in my prototype so far is sample size.) This brings up a few questions: Is a property for setting the number of alt modes preferred, or being able to make directories like some other things (eg, "mkdir alt.5" would add alt mode 5)? The former is what I started with, but I am leaning towards the latter as it is a bit more flexible (you could create alt modes of any index, though I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to.) It does involve a bit more dynamic memory allocation, but nothing crazy. And second, should the alt.x directories go back to the defaults if you remove and re-create them? I'm assuming it makes sense to do that, just putting it out there since my current prototype doesn't work that way. I appreciate your thoughts on this. -- Chris Wulff
