Hi Daniel,
Am 19.05.2011 13:05, schrieb Daniel Mack:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Mackzonque@gmail.com wrote:
I'll have a look later. I was just under the impression you wanted to try yourself :)
Attached is a patch which should show how this could work. It won't be fully functional though, as there seems to be some sort of confusion in your patch.
Thanks! I don't have the device here with me right now. I can try the patch in an hour or two !
You're calling build_named_mixer_unit_ctl() with your loop variable "in_ch", but you ignore that value in the called function. That can't be intentional, can it?
No, this isn't intentional. I wrote this in September, so I don't remember completely. But a glimpse at the code reveals that this is inherited from build_mixer_unit_ctl() which doesn't use the in_pin parameter either.
Back then I wanted both functions to be as closely related as possible, with the perspective to put them on a common base or let build_mixer_unit_ctl() actually call build_named_mixer_unit_ctl(). Most probably I later confused the in_pin parameter's (non-)meaning.
Anyway, very little tweaking should be needed now to make this work, and if you send me back the modified patch, I'll split the work and post a patch set here.
I'll send all the needed corrections.
Regards,
Felix