At Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:47:30 +0200 (CEST), Jaroslav Kysela wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hi,
this is yet another topic I'm (currently) working on -- the addition of PCM ioctls to get/set some extra attributes. Basically, it adds two simple ioctls for getting/setting extra attributes to the PCM substream. The attribute has a sort of TLV form,
/* PCM extra attributes */ struct snd_pcm_attr { unsigned int type; /* SNDRC_PCM_TYPE_ATTR_XXX */ unsigned int len; /* GET R: the max elements in value array * W: the actually written # elements * SET R/W: # elements to store */ unsigned int value[0]; /* value(s) to read / write */ };
And corresponding two ioctls #define SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_GET_ATTR _IOWR('A', 0x14, struct snd_pcm_attr) #define SNDRV_PCM_IOCTL_SET_ATTR _IOWR('A', 0x15, struct snd_pcm_attr)
I would prefer to implement similar TLV implementation as for the control API. The amount of information for reading (get) will be small, so filtering in this direction is not necessary. Also, common parts of implementation (future merging of more TLVs to compounds) can be shared.
Actually it's a sort of TLV. You see exactly it in snd_pcm_attr struct, no? :)
And, thinking twice after posting (that's a good effect of posting to ML, BTW), I feel that using a callback would be a better way, such as re-using the existing ops->ioctl with a new cmd tag rather than the statically assigned thing.
A similar method like control TLV can be used, too. However, a distinct from the existing control TLV is that this is intended for just one type of information while the control TLV is supposed to contain everything in a single shot.
That is, this is a query with a key. In that sense, sharing a small amount of control TLV code (about 10 lines) doesn't give a big benefit. In anyways, it's a implementation detail, so one could optimize somehow, though...
thanks,
Takashi