At Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:08:37 +0800, Raymond Yau wrote:
2011/1/12 Colin Guthrie gmane@colin.guthr.ie
Hi,
As has been pointed out a few times, it's incorrect to use "front:" for capture, but can we have an official name/wrapper (I'm unsure of the terminology here) for this so we don't use hw: for recording?
I'd be in favour of "capture:" or "input:" as these both seem quite logical and easy to understand.
It would be used thusly:
arecord -f S16_LE -c 2 -D capture:CARD=Intel
as opposed to the incorrect: arecord -f S16_LE -c 2 -D front:CARD=Intel or the low level: arecord -f S16_LE -c 2 -D hw:CARD=Intel
why do you think that it is incorrect to use hw:CARD=xxx for analog capture ?
I read Colin meant front:CARD=x is incorrect while hw:CARD is a lowlevel access that one doesn't always want.
I'm fine with creating a new name, but wondering which name is best. Basically what you want here is the default use-case but without dsnoop like the current "default". (If dsnoop were acceptable, "default" should have been used in most places.) "capture" may be also too ambiguous for defining that, I'm afraid.
thanks,
Takashi