if i understand the code correctly, for defining a pcmp or pcmc as a slave pcm, such as,
pcm.foo { type plug slave { pcmp bar_playback pcmc bar_capture } }
snd_pcm_slave_conf() needs to know which one to be used, so that the config subtree (of either pcmp, pcmc or pcm) is passed to snd_pcm_open_slave().
otherwise, you have to define slave pcms always separetly, such as,
pcm.foo { type plug slave { pcm bar } } pcmp.bar bar_playback pcmc.bar bar_capture
i think it's a big restriction.
As a matter of personal preference I very much prefer this latter form (as it leave capture and playback definition clearly separated as directions are in ALSA API).
Under an "objective" point of view: would you really derive from the comparison of the two equivalent alternative syntaxes the feeling of "a big restriction"?
Technically they're quite the same.
-- Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.0546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
