On 12-10-20, 09:01, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 07:25:25 +0200,
So what if we add another state but keep it in kernel (hidden from userspace)...?
That's fine, then it's just a kernel's business, and it should be determined which one makes the code better.
But, there are things to be considered, though:
SNDRV_PCM_STATE_* is defined as snd_pcm_state_t with __bitwise. This indicates that the type has to be defined in that way explicitly.
Having a value over SNDRV_PCM_STATE_LAST internally is hackish.
Right now tinycompress does not make use of PCM streams, kernel handles these. I am not aware of any other implementation.
So if the scope if within compress then it might work...
Yes. But currently the API uses SND_PCM_* even for the compress stuff. Changing this value means to have influence on PCM, even if PCM stuff doesn't use it yet. (At least you'd need to increase SND_PCM_STATE_LAST, for example.)
That said, if we want to change only for compress API by assuming that the impact must be negligible, the first step would be to move from SND_PCM_STATE_* to the own state, SND_COMPRESS_STATE_*. The values should be compatible, but this has to be changed at first. Then you can introduce a new value there.
I think that sounds reasonable to me, we should not have used SNDRV_PCM_STATE_* in the first place and long term fix for this should be SNDRV_COMPRESS_STATE_
I will cook a patch for this
Thanks