On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 13:28 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Thinking out loud here but I'm wondering if it might make sense to replace the fixed list of controls that is there currently with something string based which can remap the control names if required. This would allow for (probably in the future) having the scenario pass back a list of controls without the API having to cater for each explicitly, which would allow for other things like hardware EQ controls to be passed on to the scenario users if desired - this is useful when you get things like systems with multiple EQs.
This would complicate the API, though, and so I think it would be better left as-is until we get to the point of having something like a plugin for rewriting the controls for applications so they don't need explicit knowledge of scenarios. At that point it would only impact the scenario manager implementation which should deal with the complexity, at least externally.
I'm also thinking that it could be good to add functions to identify which PCMs on a card to use in the scenario, perhaps differentiated by quality or something. The CPU may have PCMs to multiple devices or with differing capabilities and may want to switch between them depending on scenario (and possibly stream).
Agreed, these all sound like good features for the future and will probably require some sponsorship to complete.
However, what we have atm is enough for most folks to get some working audio kcontrol scenarios configured for their devices.
Liam