On 13 Aug 2009, at 18:10, David Robillard wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 10:08 +0100, james morris wrote:
>> I was trying to point to the question of: Why base the replication
>> of a
>> control port on the replication of the audio ports? The audio port
>> replication is based on the number of channels, so base the
>> replication
>> of the control port (if it is to be replicated) on that also.
>
> ... the audio port replication IS the "number of channels".
>
>> So we have two new port properties: one to say this port should
>> always be
>> replicated - audio ports would use this - and another to say that
>> this
>> port can be replicated but does not have to be. The matching of
>> counts
>> is implied because there's no sane reason why port replication counts
>> would not match.
>
> You are (falsely) assuming the replication is the same across the
> entire
> plugin. i.e. there is no global "number of channels" value
Ah. I see.
I thought that the proposal for that the number of channels in each
port would be 1 or N.
In that case, I object to the proposal on the basis of over
complexity, and trying to solve a problem we don't actually have.
- Steve
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Aug 14 00:15:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 14 2009 - 00:15:05 EEST