Andrew Eikum <aei...@codeweavers.com> writes: > Mm, don't see much of a difference between this and an ordered list in > the code like we are using now. This also doesn't solve the original > problem of a broken OSS continuing to fail to load even if the user > explicitly requests OSS in the registry.
The difference is that the priority would be determined dynamically, so the OSS driver would return a low priority if it detects ALSA emulation. >> We also probably need a way to have only mmdevapi handle loading so that >> winmm doesn't need to duplicate the search strategy. Though the mmdevapi >> side will need to be fixed to support the correct registry syntax. > > Yes, that would be nice. What do you mean "correct registry syntax"? > Do you mean listing multiple drivers? I don't see any reason to > support that. Yes, multiple drivers. That's necessary to make configurations portable. -- Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org
